Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied With),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Eastbourne Waterworks Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bill be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Belfast Water Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Monday next.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL,

"to confirm a certain Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban District of Lurgan," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood.

Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the First time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions. for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

KIEFF.

1. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the destruction of Kieff Cathedral, waterworks, and electric generating stations before the retreat of the Polish Army; and, if so, is any protest being made by His Majesty's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): A member of the British Military Mission in Poland who left Kieff on the day before the last Polish troops were withdrawn from the city reports that on the day he left, 10th June, neither the waterworks, the cathedral, nor the electric generating stations had been destroyed, and the hon. and gallant Member will no doubt be aware that the Polish Government have officially denied these allegations. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

BATUM.

6. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Russian armed forces have been landed at Batum or Poti this year; if so, what forces were they; were they transported or escorted by British ships; and what was the object of landing these forces?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As far as His Majesty's Government are aware, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the remainder does not therefore arise.

SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION.

47. Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the indictment published in the Press on the 14th June of the Soviet administration in Russia; and if, in the face of the facts set forth therein, the Government intends to continue its negotiations with the Soviet representatives accredited to this country by Lenin?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The fact that trade is permitted with a country does not imply approval of its administration.

Sir F. HALL: Will the Government take steps to have the courageous statement made by the Secretary of State for War circulated in order that it may be distributed amongst the working classes?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it has had a fairly wide circulation.

Captain W. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of a Cabinet Minister supplementing his income by newspaper articles?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It altogether depends on the circumstances.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Have not the Government realised that all this propaganda against Russia has fallen quite flat in the country?

BRITISH OFFICERS.

29. Mr. LEONARD LYLE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received any further details with respect to the circumstances of the brutal murder by Bolsheviks of Captain W. R. Frecheville, Royal Engineers, and Lieutenant H.J. Couche, M.C., Machine Gun Corps; and whether any other British officers, so far as he knows, are in the Bolsheviks' hands!

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): As regards the first part of the question, no report of the murder of these two officers has been received from the Soviet Government, and, on the other hand, Litvinoff has informed His
Majesty's representative at Copenhagen that the competent Soviet authorities, Rostov-on-Don, have stated in reply to his Government's inquiries, that they have no knowledge whatever of the incident referred to and dismiss the story of capture and execution as an invention on the part of contra-revolutionary Russian newspapers. In spite of energetic inquiries instituted by the War Office no information has yet been forthcoming to confirm the account given by the fianceé of the Russian interpreter to Captain Frecheville. As regards the second part of the question, eleven British officers (formerly attached to the British Mission, Vladivostock) taken prisoners in Siberia by Soviet troops are still detained by the Soviet Government of Russia.

PASSPORTS.

2. Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the amount received in this country by the issue of passports to British citizens during the year 1919?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The amount received was £61,290. This sum includes fees received from the renewal and endorsement of passports in addition to fees received from the issue of passports.

3.Sir H. BRITTAIN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the fact that the visâ system may be continued by various countries beyond the period of its utility on account of the revenue it produces, His Majesty's Government can see its way to bring before the Allied nations, through our representatives in the various capitals, the suggestion that if the visâ is to be continued it should be imposed without cost to members of the travelling public.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government will be prepared, if necessary, to consider the advisability of the action suggested in this question, when the visâ system has in their opinion ceased to serve a useful purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Cannot the hon. Gentleman have this matter brought before the Council of Ambassadors in Paris, seeing that the visâsystem is most inconvenient and yet appears to serve no useful purpose?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will consider that, but I am doubtful whether it is a suitable subject for the Council of Ambassadors.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Seeing that His Majesty's Government have set such a good example, would it not be possible for them to persuade the other nations to follow that example?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that this matter is engaging the careful attention of the Foreign Office, and is reviewed from time to time.

FRANCE AND BELGIUM.

5. Mr. SWAN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information as to the proposed Franco-Belgian alliance; and whether this alliance, if carried into effect, will automatically abolish the treaty safeguarding Belgium's neutrality to which Great Britain is a party?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that preliminary discussions have taken place in Paris between Marshal Foch and the Chief of the Staff of the Belgian Army, with a view to the conclusion of a military agreement between France and Belgium. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman any information whether our two Allies are going to bring this alliance, if concluded, to the League of Nations for registration?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information on that. In any case I should ask for notice of such a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA.

ANGLO-PERSIAN AGREEMENT.

7. Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the Persian Agreement, the joint commission of military experts has been set up; and whether any munitions and equipment have been supplied to Persia by Great Britain?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
affirmative. The Report of the Commission has been drawn up and is now being being considered. The question of supplying munitions and equipment for the uniform Persian Force, which it is proposed to organise, is also occupying the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government.

8. Mr. BRIANT: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under Article 5 of Part I. of the Anglo - Persian Agreement, any schemes have been prepared for the encouragement of Anglo-Persian enterprise; and whether in such schemes preferential treatment is given to British subjects?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Article 5 of the Anglo-Persian Agreement is being carried out, as far as circumstances permit, in close co-operation between the British and Persian Governments. A railway option has been given by the Persian Government to a British firm for a proposed continuation of the present Mesopotamian railhead on the Persian frontier to Tehran via Kermanshah and Hamadan. The Company's surveyors are at present at work in Persia. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Captain BENN: In view of that answer, can the hon. Gentleman say if the principle is not to give preference to British subjects?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. I understand it still remains with the Persian Government to decide whether or not they will accept or grant contracts.

Captain BENN: Do not the Persian Government act on the advice of their British adviser, if he suggests to them to accept British in preference to other people's offers?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think so.

Sir J. D. REES: Is there any harm in British subjects obtaining a preference?

11. Major ENTWISTLE: asked whether any funds or any portion of the loan have been supplied under the Anglo-Persian Agreement; and has any interest been paid?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that according to the provisions of the Per-
sian Loan Agreement of 9th August, 1919, the loan to Persia was to be paid as required after the British Financial Adviser had taken up his duties at Tehran. The British Financial Adviser has now reached his post and is examining the financial position. The greater bulk of the loan is still available, and no interest has accrued as yet.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On what Vote is this money charged?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: On the Foreign Office Vote.

TARIFF.

10. Captain BENN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with the work of revising the Persian tariff; and is it proposed under it to give a preference of any kind to British subjects?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Persian tariff of 1903 was revised by a Joint Commission appointed by the British and Persian Governments under the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 9th August, 1919, and the revised tariff has been in force since 2nd April, 1920. A complete English translation was published as a supplement to the Board of Trade Journal of 20th May last, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend. The rates of the new tariff apply equally to imports from all countries enjoying most favoured nation treatment, and no preferential treatment is given to British subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH FACTORIES ABROAD.

12. Captain BENN: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether facilities are afforded, and assistance given, by his department to representatives of firms desiring to establish works abroad for the manufacture of munitions of war?

Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I am not aware of any case in which facilities have been given by my Department for the purpose indicated.

MANUFACTURED SILK (FRENCH EMBARGO).

13. Major HOWARD: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the prohibition by
the French Government of the importation of manufactured silk from this country is for a fixed period or an indefinite one; and, as this prohibition will seriously affect the silk industry in this country, has any representation been made to the French Government on the subject?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): No fixed period was established for the continuance in force of the import prohibitions imposed by the French Decree of the 23rd April on silk manufactures and various other classes of goods. Representations were made to the French Government with the object of inducing them, if possible, to withdraw the prohibition in respect of silk mourning crêpe, of which our exports of silk goods to France mainly consist. From information which has recently been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, it appears that the issue of a new Decree is now in contemplation, under which the prohibition will be maintained against a limited number of articles only, which, it is hoped will not include silk mourning crêpe.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that the Italian trade has been given preference in the French market?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to have notice of that question.

GERMAN TOYS.

91. Mr. BUTLER LLOYD: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that German toys and other things are being sold in England without being marked with their place of origin; if he is aware that much German produce is sold to neutral countries and then passed on to this country; and if he will take steps to alter this state of affairs?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend is considering the whole question of the marking of foreign goods in the light of the Report of the Merchandise Marks Committee, copies of which will shortly be available.

EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME.

92. Mr. SWAN: asked what is the amount of advances to date made to
British exporters under the export credits scheme?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The amount of advances to date made to British exporters under the export credits scheme is £28,242 8s. 4d.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CADET FORCE.

14. Major HENNESSY: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that certain secondary school cadet corps are being disbanded owing to the want of sufficient funds to keep them up; that since the War certain additional privileges have been accorded to schools having in them recognised junior officer training corps; and that no such extension of privileges has been made to similar schools having corps recognised under cadet corps regulations; whether the Government has been approached by educational associations to remove the differential treatment being accorded to schools in the matter of recognition of junior officer training corps and cadet corps; and whether the Government is prepared to take steps to accord equal treatment to all secondary schools in the matter of recognition for purposes of cadet training?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole question of the cadet force has been the subject of careful consideration by the War Office in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, and I hope that a decision will shortly be reached, and that I shall be in a position to make an announcement on the matter at an early date.

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.

16. Mr. C. PALMER: asked the Secretary of State for War the total amount of the fund at the disposal of the Navy and Army Canteen Board; how much has been expended, on what objects, and the balance remaining; and to what purpose, or purposes, is it to be devoted?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): It is not possible to state the total unexpended balance of canteen funds pending the completion of the liquidation of the Expeditionary
Force Canteens. The total amount expended by the Army Council from canteen funds up to the 31st December, 1919, amounted to £936,900 approximately, of which details have been published from time to time in Army Council instructions. Information as to disbursements made by the United Services Fund should be obtained from Lord Byng at the offices of the Fund, 29, Cromwell Road, S.W.7. The funds are utilised for the benefit of serving and ex-serving officers and men and their dependants.

Commander Viscount CURZON: Is it the intention of the War Office to cease calling this the United Services Fund, seeing that the Navy does not participate in that?

44. Viscount WOLMER: asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Navy and Army Canteen Board have made arrangements to open forthwith another retail shop at Aldershot in the Queen Alexandra Young Men's Christian Association premises fronting Aldershot Fleet main public road; and whether he will explain the reason for this, in view of the statements made to the business deputation received by him on the 3rd June that all Navy and Army Canteen Board retail shops should be closed forthwith and that no others would be opened?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: As I stated to the deputation which I received at the War Office on the 3rd June, while I could give no pledge as to establishments and institutes of the Navy and Army Canteen Board on War Department land, the others not so situated had either been closed or were actually being closed. The new premises of the Navy and Army Canteen Board, which have recently been opened at Aldershot in Pennefathers Roard, are, as the Noble Lord is aware, situated on War Department land, well inside the confines of the camp and in the midst of the barrack buildings.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these new premises are on the road only a few hundred yards away from the old premises which he promised should be taken away? What practical difference is there in the two positions?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am aware of that, but it is more than a few hundred
yards. I have seen the map and the scale. They are placed on the road, and they are in the middle of the camp.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will anyone except members of the naval and military and air forces be allowed to use these canteens?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The use will be confined to those who are members of the forces and a limited list of people who are more or less connected with the forces. I have not the list with me, but I can supply it.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is not the Government going into competition with private traders?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, so far as the forces are concerned there is competition with private trade, but there is no competition in regard to supplying civilians outside those people I have mentioned connected with the forces.

Viscount WOLMER: Are we to understand from that answer that it is the intention of the Government to compete with traders in these garrison towns in their ordinary trade?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The Canteen Board, as the Noble Lord knows, exists to supply the necessities of the soldier and his dependants, and it is the intention of the Government to continue to so supply them.

Mr. PALMER: Was not the Canteen Board merely an Army measure promised to be dropped when the War was over?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: ; No, the canteens are a very old institution. They were very unsatisfactory before the War, and a new system was introduced which was more or less to come to an end at the end of the War, and now a Committee is sitting at the War Office to consider the formation of a new system which will apply not only to the Army. but to the Navy and the Air Force.

Viscount WOLMER: Are these steps of development being taken without the sanction of the Committee which is now sitting?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There are no developments of the scope of trading, I am informed. The scope of trading is the same as it has been for some time.
But, as far as regards the future, the Committee will no doubt consider the scope, and have offered to receive witnesses from the association represented by the Noble Lord.

HOME WAR SERVICE (MEDAL).

19. Mr. PERCY: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to issue a medal or badge to those troops, a large portion of whom were volunteers, who served during the War but whose services did not extend beyond the United Kingdom?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have already stated, the question of the award of a medal for service at home during the War will receive further consideration as soon as the preparation and issue of the War Medal is more advanced. I can, however, make no promise of a favourable decision at this stage.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the War Office cannot give a medal—and I quite appreciate the difficulty in regard to that—cannot it give a parchment certificate or some other form of recognition to these men—largely old soldiers, who came back to the Army and did all the training but got none of the glory and honour?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will consider that. There are enormous numbers of the people who in one way or another rendered most valuable service to the country, and they would probably all claim the parchment certificate.

Major NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of issuing no more medals until he has dealt with the case of the territorials who served abroad?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I have already said that the claims of men who served at the front must have priority over all others.

RE-CLOTHING

25. Colonel YATE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering that it has been decided not to abolish the stand-up collar buttoned tightly to the throat in the re-issue of full-dress tunics to the Army, he will give instructions that the collar is to be cut just as loose and as easy round the throat as would be the case had a roll collar been substituted?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The collar of the full-dress tunic is not a high one, and, when fitting the tunic, the necessary ease and comfort of fit is always considered. As I stated in reply to a previous question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 8th June, the stand-up military collar should be no more irksome than that worn in civilian dress.

Colonel YATE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has ever seen a battalion on the railway, where every man has to unbutton his coat to enable him to breathe?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This is a question of choice between a stand-up collar and a roll collar, and from the point of view of military uniform, there is no doubt whatever that the stand-up collar is much better adapted. It can be put on very much more quickly, and all the difficulty of shirt, collar and tie, and undergarments generally, is completely avoided by having a collar which, with two small hooks, is completely fastened. Anyone who knows will agree that far greater speed in dressing and arriving on parade can be achieved with a stand-up collar than with a roll collar and tie.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these hooks are so fastened that men can wear them without irksomeness?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will give my personal attention to that.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far preparations have proceeded for the re-issue of these full-dress tunics in the Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that is a matter of which I should receive notice.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I will ask a question with reference to it to-morrow.

34. Major JOHN EDWARDS: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it will be possible to restrict coloured uniforms to the Household Cavalry and Foot Guards, and to clothe the remainder of the Army in khaki?

42. Captain TUDOR-REES: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Financial Secretary to the War Office has recently stated that recruiting for the Regular Army is proceeding satisfactorily, and that the chief reason given for ordering
scarlet uniforms was the stimulation of recruiting, he will consider the advisability of cancelling the order?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; it will certainly be possible to do this, if it were thought advisable in future years.

Captain W. BENN: Will it not create an invidious distinction between one regiment and another, when all have served with equal honour in the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understood that one part of the argument against the introduction of full dress was that it was so unpopular with the soldiers, leading to all this undue work with pipeclay and so on; and in that case it would not be an invidious distinction, but the reverse.

Mr. PALMER: May I ask whether the great point was not the wasteful expenditure on these uniforms?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, have an opportunity of dealing fully and eloquently with that subject to-morrow.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any expressions of opinion from the rank and file as to this proposed change?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not in the sense that they have been asked to have a plebiscite on the subject, but, in the course that I have recommended to the House, I have been following the advice which has been given to me by all those who are responsible for the good government of the Army.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rank and file are very far from being united in favour of khaki?

37. Mr. HINDS: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the quantity of khaki cloth not yet delivered for which tenders have been accepted?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are no outstanding contracts for khaki cloth, and all deliveries were completed some considerable time ago.

38. Mr. HINDS: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the names of the firms who will make the proposed Army uniforms; and What is the value of the contract held by each?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No orders either for cloth or for making it up into uniforms have so far been placed with the trade.

Captain TUDOR-REES: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state to the House that the orders had actually been given?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I said that sanction had been given to proceed with the execution of the policy. Between that and the actual physical steps by which that policy is executed there is very often a considerable and indefinite interval of delay.

Mr. PALMER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say the money was already being spent, although this House of Commons had not formally sanctioned it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the total sum of money involved in the proposal we put forward with regard to this year amounted to approximately £130,000. I also said that the order had been given and the decision had been taken to proceed with the policy involving that expenditure. Of course, expenditure is proceeding on every branch of the Army Estimates, in virtue of which the House has already passed a large Vote on Account. The special sanction of the House of Commons is not given in detail to each particular item in the Estimates, nor is expenditure on that particular item in the Estimates detailed and withheld until such sanction has been given. If such a rule prevailed it would be impossible to conduct affairs for a single day, as no one ought to know better than the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Major BARNES: Is it a fact that if the Government reversed its policy there would be no loss on account of orders having been placed?

Captain TUDOR-REES: Are we to understand that there is no contract between the War Office and any private manufacturers with regard to these uniforms?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand what has actually begun is the making up of stocks we had in our possession. Contracts have not actually been placed with the trade. It is the intention of the Government to place such regular contracts in the regular course, assuming that we are fortunate enough to retain the good will and support of the House of Commons.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was a picturesque figure of speech when the right hon. Gentleman said the looms had been started?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, perhaps it was.

Mr. PALMER: Was it a terminological inexactitude?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Naturally I was not aware of the exact state of the execution of the contracts, but the note given me, on which I based my answer, was that this decision would lead to the looms being set in motion.

31. Lieut.-Colonel PARRY: asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers with pre-War commissions whose coloured uniforms are no longer of suitable size or have so deteriorated as to be useless will be provided with any allowance when the proposed new clothing is made compulsory?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

BURTON'S COURT.

27. Sir S. HOARE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have now received any answer from the First Commissioner of Works with reference to the evacuation of Burton's Court.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Sir S. HOARE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me at all when he will have information on this subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will send a copy of the question and answer to my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. Perhaps that will produce an acceleration of the matter.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring all his influence to bear on the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital to induce them to resume occupation of Burton's Court at the earliest possible opportunity?

NURSES (KIT ALLOWANCE).

30. Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMAS: asked the Secretary of State for War if the £15 allowance for kit made to Army sisters ordered to Mesopotamia is subsequently deducted from their pay; and, if so, whether he will explain why this is done?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Nurses serving on a temporary engagement are given £5 10s. on embarking for the first time for Mesopotamia and certain other stations in the East, for the purpose of buying tropical kit. This amount is not deducted from their pay. Nurses serving on a regular engagement are not entitled to this allowance.

GUARDS REGIMENTS.

35. Major J. EDWARDS: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the retention of the Welsh and Irish Guards is dependent upon their maintaining their recruiting in such a manner as to preserve the national character of the regiments; and, if so, whether a similar condition applies to the Grenadiers Guards, Scots Guards, and other regiments?

39. Mr. HINDS: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the provisional retention of the Welsh and Irish Guards subject to the maintenance of their strength and national characteristics applies equally to the Scots Guards and other national regiments; and what percentage of national personnel is required to ensure their retention?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the affirmative. The same conditions will apply to the Scots Guards, but as regards the other regiments I would point out that the Grenadier and Coldstream Guards have no special national character. It is not considered desirable to fix a definite percentage, at any rate for the present.

SCOTTISH COMMAND (CONTRACTS).

40. Mr. WILLIAM YOUNG: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Messrs. Watson and Sons, contractors, of Perth City, have had certain monetary claims for work executed pending with the War Department since December, 1916, comprising settlement of balance of triennial contracts for four districts in Scotland and other building works executed during the War period to that date under the Scottish Command; that repeated applications have been made to the War Office for settlement and no satisfactory replies received; and whether he will now have the claims referred to inquired into and settled without further delay?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I understand that there are three claims in question,
in two of which ex gratis payments were made in September, 1917, and January, 1918, and the other was the subject of an arbitrator's award about a year ago. Towards the end of last year, Messrs. Watson and Sons appealed against the rulings given and the claims have again been investigated, but so far no grounds for further payment have been disclosed. The consideration of the remaining points raised will, it is hoped, shortly be completed, and a final answer will be sent to Messrs. Watson and Sons at the earliest possible date.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (REGULATION 13A).

43. Viscountess ASTOR: asked the Secretary of State for War whether Regulation 13a, issued under the Defence of the Realm powers, is still in operation; and, if so, whether he will give the names of the areas covered by such order?

Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as I am aware, there is no area in which an order under Defence of the Realm Regulation 13a is in operation. The cancellation of the Regulation is now being considered.

KHAKI CLOTH.

32. Lieut.-Colonel PARRY: asked the Secretary of State for War what quantity of khaki has been handed over to the Disposal Board?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The quantity of khaki cloth that has been reported to the Disposal Board is as follows:—



Yards.


Cloth, greatcoat, drab mixture
1,000,000


Serge, drab mixture
2,500,000


Tartan, drab mixture
2,500,000


Bedford Cord
500,000


Whipcord
728,000

Sir F. HALL: For what purpose has this been handed over?

Mr. CHURCHILL: For sale to the country.

Sir F. HALL: Cannot it be utilised for clothing the soldiers?

Mr. PALMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman withhold this order until the House has given a decision on the question of khaki?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are great quantities that are surplus. We have
always found ourselves open to criticism for holding too large a stock and for not endeavouring to reduce the high price of cloth in the country.

Sir F. HALL: Would it not be more economical to use this cloth in uniforms for the soldiers in the first case, and then to go into the question of clothing the troops in scarlet?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not at all sure whether it would be wise to keep such very large stocks of khaki. We are keeping enormous stocks of khaki, both in uniforms and in cloth, at our disposal now, because that is going to be the permanent working dress of the Army. But this is surplus to all that, and I certainly do not think we ought to go back on the decision to put this quantity of khaki on the market.

Sir F. HALL: Has the House had a chance of deciding this question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is impossible for the House of Commons to decide every question of detailed administration. The House of Commons is not an Executive body; it is the body that controls the Executive.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

CURRAGH CAMP (DISCHARGES).

15. Sir JOHN BUTCHER: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of ex-service men were recently engaged to work at the Curragh Camp in Ireland, and undertook to work 66 hours a week; whether objection was taken by some local civilian painters as to the number of hours worked by these ex-service painters; whether the matter was referred to the engineer officer in charge; whether the result was that the ex-service men were discharged and lost their job; and whether he can give any information as to the circumstances under which these men were dismissed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The report which has been called for has not yet been received. I will not fail to write to the hon. and learned Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I will repeat the question this day week.

ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY (DISCHARGE).

18. Sir J. BUTCHER: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a disabled ex-service man, Private N. G. Mates, No. 2,982, Connaught Rangers, was employed by the Army authorities on work of reconstruction at the Royal Dublin Society's premises at Ball's Bridge, Dublin, from 4th May, 1919, to 19th December, 1919, when he was summarily dismissed; and whether he will state why, and by whose orders, this man was dismissed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that Mr. Mates was not employed under the War Office, but by the Royal Dublin Society.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any means by which this ex-soldier can get redress if he was improperly dismissed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a matter for the War Office. It did not employ him.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Were not the Society acting under the instructions of the War Office in this matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed we have no responsibility in the matter.

RESETTLEMENT GRANT.

36. Major MACKENZIE WOOD: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any and, if so, how many men in continued receipt of allowances from the Civil Liabilities Fund still remain in the Army; and whether any precautions have been taken by the War Office to see that men in receipt of these grants were not accpted for extended srvice in the Army unless they relinquished their grants?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The number of such men is approximately 300. Men who extended their service were not required to relinquish the grant, but the grant will shortly cease in all cases.

Major WOOD: Was it not taken into consideration how much these men would cost the country before their extended service was accepted?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, Sir, the War Office had no information as to the local grants given by the local committees. The War Office pay the standard pay.

GOVERNMENT OFFICES.

51. Sir S. HOARE: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the position of ex-service men employed in temporary posts in Government offices, with a view to seeing how far preference can be given to them for permanent employment?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 8th instant, in his reply to a question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing, a Committee is being set up to consider what modifications, if any, should be made in existing arrangements for the employment of ex-service men in Government Departments. This Committee will consider the question of the conditions under which ex-service men should be given permanent posts in the Civil Service. I may add that at the examination for the new clerical class (men), which will shortly be held, it has already been decided to reserve 75 per cent. of the vacancies for ex-service candidates, if so large a proportion reach the qualifying standard.

Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to necessary retrenchment, a great many men are being dismissed, and could not the Committee be set up immediately? It is a matter of great urgency.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is being set up immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

MOSUL (DISTURBANCES).

21. Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give the House any further information regarding the situation in and near Mosul and as to the causes of the recent outbreaks?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the result of the operations of the punitive column sent out from Mosul on 4th June, the hostile Arab gathering in the Tel Afar district have dispersed. There have been attacks on the lines of communication between Samarra and Mosul, all of which have been repulsed. The cause of the recent outbreaks is not known, but they are probably inspired by the Young Arab party, as stated in the reply to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for
Gateshead (Brigadier-General Surtees) on the 17th June.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information as to whether the motor cars seized by the Arabs have yet been recovered?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to what British casualties there were in these operations?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There were two officers and about 12 soldiers killed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Did those include any white British troops, or were they entirely Indian troops?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The casualties to which I am referring occurred to white British troops.

ADMINISTRATION (ARAB NOTABLES).

45. Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the Arab notables are being associated with the present administration of Mesopotamia; what progress is anticipated in the future; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this respect?

Mr. BONAR LAW: From the beginning of the occupation of Mesopotamia, Arab notables have largely cooperated both in the civil and judicial administration of the country. In addition to this, numerous Arab advisory bodies, formal and informal, have been constituted, and it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that this policy should be continued to the fullest extent possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by these Arab notables co-operating? Are any of these people with regular posts as officials in the Mesopotamian Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are they being paid at the same rates as Indian or British officers holding similar posts?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not answer that question.

Mr. SWAN: Does not the administration of Mesopotamia involve a huge expenditure for transport and purchase of land and works?

Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of this question.

Mr. SWAN: It is administration.

Mr. SPEAKER: This deals with Arabs.

ADMINISTRATION.

53. Sir J. D. REES: asked the Prime Minister whether it is contemplated that the type of administration to be introduced into Mesopotamia shall be considered by the League of Nations; if so. what are the qualifications of the League for dealing with such a question; and is its opinion thereon to be preferred to that of the Government and of the representatives of the people?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The consideration of the Mandate by the League of Nations does not imply that the League will determine the details of the administration.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the Government or Parliament be liable to be over-ruled whenever two or three men or supermen meet in the name of the League of Nations? How will it work?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope my hon. Friend and I will live long enough to see how it works.

JERUSALEM (DISTURBANCES).

22. Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received the Report of the Judicial Commission appointed by Field-Marshal Lord Allenby to inquire into the outbreak of disorder in Jerusalem in April last; whether any action has been taken on the Report; and will the Report be made public?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Court of Enquiry into the disorders which took place in Jerusalem in April last is still sitting, and, therefore, the last part of this question does not arise. An Interim Report of the Court of Enquiry has been received. It is for the Foreign Office to decide upon the question of publication.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is this a military court of inquiry or a civil commission?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a judicial commission. I think it is partly composed of military elements, but it is presided over by a civilian, and it will report to the Foreign Office.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to publish the Interim Report?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

KUT PRISONERS (OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES).

23. Colonel YATE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering that the regimental allowances drawn by regimental officers of the Indian Army is regimental pay and not staff pay, and that it has been proved that the regimental pay of officers of the Indian Army was not greater during the War than that drawn by officers of the British Army, he will cancel the order depriving officers of the Indian Army, taken prisoner in the defence of Kut, of half their regimental allowances after the first two months of captivity?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The emolument that was reduced by half, as described in the question, is officially termed "staff pay". I do not think any question of allowances, in the sense in which that word is officially used, arises. The staff pay in question differs from regimental pay in that its issue is conditional upon performance of duty. The Regulation referred to was made with the concurrence of the War Office by the Indian Authorities, and it would not be in the power of the War Office to cancel it, even if it were considered that any case existed for so doing. I must not be understood to accept the hon. and gallant Member's statement that the regimental pay of Indian Army officers was not greater than that of British Army officers.

Colonel YATE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it has been proved that the regimental allowances of Indian officers were not greater than those of British officers, according to a return which he himself issued, and is it not a very great injustice to Indian Army officers that they should be deprived of their pay for the defence of Kut?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have just said that I am not to be understood to accept that interpretation.

AFGHAN WAR, 1919.

24. Colonel YATE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the troops employed in the Afghan war of 1919 on the North-West Frontier of India will be entitled to the Victory Medal?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

TERRITORIAL ARMY.

41. Captain TUDOR-REES: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied with the progress of recruiting for the Territorial Army; and whether he will state the number of recruits enrolled to date and the total number required to complete the establishment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my previous replies on this subject, and in particular to my answer on Tuesday last to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich, in which I stated that, in the opinion of those who are most closely acquainted with the subject, there are grounds for hoping that ultimately the required numbers for the Territorial Army will be forthcoming. I have received quite encouraging reports from the divisional officers of the Territorial Force, but I do not think we should expect this force to rise to anything like its full strength for probably 12 or 18 months.

Colonel YATE: Has the 25 per cent. yet been enlisted, to enable the Territorials to go into camp this year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In some cases more than 25 per cent.; but we are arranging special camps for grouped units where, if men wish to have preliminary training in musketry, facilities can be given.

CILICIA (ARMISTICE).

50. Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a copy of the Armistice signed between Mustapha Kemal and the Allied Commander-in-Chief in Cilicia; and whether the town of Adana and the section of the Baghdad railway between that town and the Taurus tunnels are still in Allied occupation?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Armistice with Mustapha Kemal was signed by the
representative of the French High Commissioner. There is no Allied Commander-in-Chief in Cilicia, for which the French have sole responsibility. His Majesty's Government are not in possession of a copy of the Armistice terms, but from the information in their possession there seems to be no reason to suppose that the evacuation of Adana is contemplated. It appears doubtful, however, whether the French troops still command the railway between Adana and the Taurus tunnels.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the French Commander-in-Chief and the Allied Commander-in-Chief agreed to the terms of the Armistice?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like notice of that question.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MARRIED WOMEN).

54. Sir. F. HALL: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the number of married women employed on clerical and administrative or similar work in the War Office, the Ministry of Health, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Food and the Board of Trade, respectively?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The numbers are as follow:


War Office (including Local Audit and Offices, Chelsea Hospital, Royal Army Clothing Department)
141


Ministry of Health
43


Air Ministry
50


Ministry of Labour
270


Ministry of Food (Headquarters only).
143


Board of Trade
92

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

INDEMNITY (GERMANY).

55. Sir F. HALL: asked the Lord Privy Seal if his attention has been called to the report that the German Government has repudiated the indemnity offer made in its note of 20th May, 1919, on the ground that since then Germany's economic resources have been weakened by further territorial losses not contemplated by the Treaty of Versailles; and if he will state whether in fact Germany has been called upon since May, 1919,
to surrender any territory not covered by the Treaty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

SALES TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

56. Captain W. BENN: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can now make a statement about the Government's sale of munitions of war to Foreign Governments; and whether particulars of such transactions will be communicated to the Disarmament Commission set up by the League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to add anything to replies given to similar questions on the 5th of May and the 17th of June. As regards the last part of the question, there is, I think, no provision in the Peace Treaty that details of this nature should be furnished to the League of Nations.

Captain BENN: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a full statement as to the disposal of the munitions to foreign countries?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am getting the particulars, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that it would be undesirable to publish them while negotiations are still going on.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What negotiations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: For the sale of them

CHILWELL ORDNANCE DEPOT.

82. Mr. BETTERTON: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, whether his attention has been called to the allegations which have been made as regards the depreciation and waste of stores at the Chilwell Ordnance Depot; and whether he will make a full statement on the subject and inform the House what steps are being taken to preserve, and to dispose of to advantage, the accumulation of stores there collected.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): This question should be
addressed to the War Office, and I was informed that a communication to that effect had been addressed to the hon. Member.

INCOME TAX.

57. Mr. GREENWOOD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the need for more university-trained men in certain British industries, donations made by the firms engaged in those industries for the express purpose of extending the provision of university education, including training in methods of research, in departments of science and technology applied to those industries, are officially regarded as money wholly and exclusively expended for the purposes of the trade, so as to be admissible as expenses in the computation of profits for Income Tax purposes?

The FINANCIAL SECRETAY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): Donations made by a trader for the purposes indicated in the question would not be regarded as money wholly and exclusively expended for the purposes of his trade, and are therefore not admissible as expenses in the computation of his profits for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Having regard to the reply of Mr. Shepherd, of Liverpool wherein it was stated by the Treasury that any subscriptions given to such institutions by a firm to help in forwarding the education of their workpeople would he taken into consideration, is not the right hon. Gentleman's reply quite inconsistent?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES).

58. Mr. C. WHITE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Members of Parliament are now refusing to accept their salaries as Members of Parliament; and what constituencies they represent.

Mr. BALDWIN: There are at the present time seven such Members who decline to accept their salaries as Members of Parliament; as regards the last part of the question I am not in a position to furnish any information, as any volun-
tary surrender of salary on the part of a Member is naturally of a private and personal nature.

TREASURY (STAFF).

59. Captain TUDOR-REES: asked the `Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the staff employed under the Treasury has been decreased or increased during the last 12 months; if increased, what is the extra annual cost; and what is the number of persons involved?

Mr. BALDWIN: Since the 1st July, 1919, the staff of the Treasury has been increased by 81 of all ranks, representing approximately £56,500 in salaries and war bonus. The reorganisation and expansion of the Treasury have been requisite to carry out the policy continually advocated in this House of strengthening Treasury control over public expenditure. In this connection, I may refer the hon. and gallant Member to the recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure (House of Commons Paper 167, Session 1917), paragraphs 10 (d) and 15.

Captain TUDOR-REES: Has the Treasury actually exercised control over expenditure?

Mr. BALDWIN: That must be a matter of opinion. In my opinion, they are exercising economy more and more.

CINEMAS (CENSORSHIP).

60. Mr. DOYLE: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increasing popularity of cinema shows, and the admitted influence the representations of burglaries and serious offences have on the juvenile population, as shown by the cases brought before police courts, he will consider the desirability of the appointment of an official censor, whose consent must first be obtained before pictures are shown to the public?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My hon. Friend's suggestion would require legislation, which I am afraid is impossible at the present time.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I press upon the right hon. Gentleman the need of legislation on this matter, because it is having a tremendous effect on children throughout the country, and great pressure is being brought by women all over England, asking that something should be done?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid legislation is not possible at present.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

61. Mr. DOYLE: asked the Home Secretary in view of the prevalence of crimes of violence and the many failures of the police to trace the culprits, and the alarm and misgiving of the public in consequence, if he will state what action he is taking to effectually reform the detective system; and whether, in view of the obvious possession of inside knowledge by certain culprits, indicating a serious defect in the confidential branch of the service, he will grant a searching inquiry with a view to giving the public that protection which they have a right to expect and for which they pay?

Mr. SHORTT: The possibility of securing closer co-operation in the detection of crime between the different police forces has engaged and is engaging my attention, but I cannot admit that the prevalence of crimes of violence or the proportion of cases in which no arrest has been made are such as to justify in any degree the sweeping statements made by the hon. Member. I do not know to what "obvious possession of inside knowledge" he alludes in the second part of the question, and I shall be glad if he will furnish me with particulars.

Mr. DOYLE: If I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with particulars, will he give the matter attention?

Mr. SHORTT: Of course I will.

TWENTY-FOUR HOUR CLOCK.

62. Viscount CURZON: asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has yet been reached with reference to the adoption of the 24-hour clock?

Mr. SHORTT: I am in communication with the Minister of Transport on the
question of the application of the 24-hour system of notation to railways, and am not yet in a position to make an an-nouncement on the matter.

MOTOR CARS (POLICE CONTROLS).

63. Viscount CURZON: asked the Home Secretary how many police controls were in operation in the Metropolitan police area for detecting infringements of the Motor Car Act between a.m. 19th June and p.m. 21st June; how many police officers were employed; and with what success?

Mr. SHORTT: There were 111 controls during the three days. Severity-six police officers were employed. One hundred and twelve cases were reported for prosecution.

Dr. MURRAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable to give this information to potential Departments?

Sir F. HALL: Has not the time arrived when in the open country the speed limit of 20 miles might be increased?

Mr. SHORTT: Life and limb must be preserved even in the open country.

EX-ENEMY CONSULS.

65. Major NALL: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Captain Laderer, ex-Austrian Consul in Manchester, left this country a few days previous to the declaration of war between Britain and Germany; whether Theodore Schlagenweit thereupon visited Ports-mouth and other places on the South Coast on Laderer's behalf, issuing money and instructions to Austrian reservists, and whether Laderer, having escaped internment, is now to be allowed to resume residence in this country?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. There is no information, so far as I can ascertain, in the possession of the authorities to the effect suggested in the second paragraph The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

Major NALL: Is it a fact that this man is back in this country?

Mr. SHORTT: Which man?

Major NALL: The ex-Austrian consul.

Mr. SHORTT: He was allowed here for a short time in a very limited area for business purposes.

Major NALL: Are we to understand that he has now left the country?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes.

66. Major NALL: asked the Home Secretary why Theodore Schlagenweit, who was interned in 1914, was repatriated to Germany during hostilities; whether he is aware that on 5th August, 1914, this man visited ships in the Manchester docks and lodging houses in that city, after which the German crews of certain vessels mysteriously disappeared; whether the whole record of this man's activities was laid before the Home Office before he was repatriated; and why this information was ignored?

Mr. SHORTT: This man was repatriated in 1915 as one of a party of German consular officials who were exchanged for an equivalent number of British officials and other civilians detained in Germany. The facts of the case were well known when the Foreign Office and War Office arranged the exchange; but I have no corroboration of the particular allegations contained in the question; and, even if true, they would not have afforded sufficient ground for refusing an exchange which it was in the interest of this country to carry out.

Major NALL: Is it not a fact that a great deal of information on this matter was forwarded to the Home Office in 1914 by an Alderman of the City of Manchester, and is it not a fact that that information was totally ignored?

Mr. SHORTT: I have not been able to ascertain that.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman investigated the case I sent to him 10 days ago as to the knowledge possessed by a brother of this man, who was in the German Army, as to the movements of the Manchester Regiment? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the witness to whom I referred?

Mr. SHORTT: I have not seen him personally.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As this is a very serious allegation, is it being attended to?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no doubt it is being attended to.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

SHIPPING FACILITIES.

70 and 71. Major MORRISON-BELL: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller (1) if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the inhabitants and garrison of Malta by the almost entire lack of shipping that now touches at the island; if he is aware that many of those who are under doctors' orders to leave the island, especially many children, are unable to do so; if he can take steps to have some special arrangements made to relieve the congestion until conditions become more normal;
(2) if, with a view to relieving the transport difficulties of those travellers wishing to leave Malta, he will arrange to have a certain percentage, however small, of berths reserved on the few ships homeward bound that do now touch at the island?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (Colonel L. Wilson): A letter has just been received from His Excellency the Governor on this subject. The Shipping Controller is ascertaining the number of people waiting to come home and unable to travel viâItaly and France with a view to considering what steps are possible to assist them.

MAIL DELIVERIES.

89. Major MORRISON-BELL: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the irregularity in the arrival of mails at Malta; if he is aware that even the nominal weekly mail is sometimes several days overdue; and if he can do anything that would lessen these postal hardships and improve the present state of affairs?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am aware that the mail service to Malta is irregular. It is dependent on a commercial line of Italian steamships from Syracuse once a week, though the opportunity is also taken of sending mails direct from the United Kingdom by any of His Majesty's ships or transports sail-
ing for Malta. I fear that a better service cannot be looked for unless the island can secure more frequent communication with the Continent.

NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.

72. Mr. LAMBERT: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller what is the present position of the national shipyards; what has been the total cost to date; what is the monthly expense of running them; have any of them been sold and, if so, for what price; and how it is proposed to utilise the unsold establishments?

Colonel WILSON: The total cost to date of Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury yards, together with the cost of houses at Beachley and Chepstow, and expenses in connection with the fitting out dock at Portishead, including liabilities, is about £6,400,000. None of the yards are now being operated as shipbuilding yards by the Government, and the only expenditure at present being incurred by the Government is in connection with the completion of the housing scheme as agreed under the contract of the sale of the Chepstow yards, and the sale of surplus stores. The yards and houses at Chepstow, together with a portion of the houses at Beachley, have been sold for £1,000,000. In addition, some £332,000 has been realised by the sale of buildings, plant, etc., and further plant and materials are being realised by the Disposal Board. Buildings costing about £187,000 have been transferred to other Departments. The unsold properties will be disposed of to the best advantage as opportunity offers.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the net loss on this adventure?

Colonel WILSON: I think that any sum I gave without explanation, as regards the contract, would be very erroneous. I should like notice of the question.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has the contract for the sale of these yards been executed or has it been repudiated?

Colonel WILSON: As I announced, there was a request for a recision of the contract, but the contract is still in existence, the heads of agreement have been signed, and for months the company has been in occupation.

Sir F. HALL: Did not the Government lay down that yard to provide additional mercantile tonnage during the War, and therefore might not some loss on it be expected owing to the Armistice?

Mr. PALMER: Is it not a fact that these concrete ships were gruesome failures, and that we are out of pocket £5,000,000 on the whole business?

Colonel WILSON: My hon. Friend is incorrect. We built no concrete ships in these yards.

Mr. SWAN: Is it not a fact that these works were stopped in order that they would not come into competition with private yards?

Colonel WILSON: I have no idea that these works will be stopped. I hope that they will not be stopped, and that shipbuilding work will be developed in the Bristol Channel.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

73. Mr. HOGGE: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to adhere to paragraph 24a of the warrant by which widows' pensions are standardised for three years, while railwaymen and others have their wages raised according to the rise in the maximum numbers of the Board of Trade?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Leader of the House on the 16th of this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BREWING AND DISTILLING MATERIALS.

74. Mr. RAFFAN: asked the Minister of Food the amount, in tons, of barley, rye, oats, maize, flaked rice, and other cereals, sugar molasses, and glucose used in brewing and distilling in the United Kingdom during the year ending 31st December, 1919?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): As the answer to this question is in the form of a statistical table I will, with the permission of the House, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the information promised:

The latest period for which the information desired by the hon. Member is available is the year ended 30th September, 1919. The quantities of materials actually used by brewers in the United Kingdom in that period were as follows:



Tons.


Malt
556,157


Unmalted corn
2,397


Rice, rice grits, flaked rice, maize grits, flaked maize, and other similar preparations
17,551


Sugar, including its equivalents of syrups, glucose and saccharum
76,588

The estimated quantities of materials used in distilleries in the same period were:







Tons.


Malt
…
…
…
…
113,875


Unmalted grain
…
…
…
177,000


Rice
…
…
…
…
—


Molasses
…
…
…
…
4,421


Glucose
…
…
…
…
—


Sugar
…
…
…
…
66


Other materials
…
…
…
900

75. Mr. RAFFAN: asked the Minister of Food in what forms sugar or its equivalents are employed in the process of brewing; in what respect brewing sugars are unsuitable for manufacturing and domestic purposes; and whether such sugars could be rendered suitable for domestic or manufacturing purposes?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Sugar is generally used for brewing in a form known as "Brewers Invert." The raw material of this commodity is a low grade of cane sugar with a very high percentage of impurity, and, in the majority of cases, an unpleasant taste. Such sugar cannot be rendered suitable for domestic or manufacturing purposes except at an expense so great as to be, in most cases, practically prohibitive. It can be, however, and is, to some extent, manufactured into syrup for domestic consumption.

"FOOD JOURNAL."

76. Captain TUDOR-REES: asked the Food Controller how many persons are engaged upon the production of the "Food Journal"; what is the total annual cost in connection with it; what
is its circulation; how many copies are sold monthly; what are the net receipts from sales; what, if any, useful purpose it serves; and whether he will consider the advisability of ceasing its production?

Sir W.MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers already given on this subject on the 4th and 18th May to the hon. Member for Frome. The publication of this journal has now ceased.

PROFITEERING ACT.

77. Mr. DOYLE: asked the Minister of Food how many retail dealers have been summoned and convicted for offences against the Profiteering Act during the last three months, and the average amounts of the fines; how many manufacturers and wholesalers have been summoned and convicted, and the average amount of the fines, if any; how many reputed offences have been reported to the Local Food Committees; and on whose authority are prosecutions undertaken?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. During the three months ending the 31st May, 1920, proceedings had been instituted under the Profiteering Acts against 17 retail traders; convictions being obtained in 14 cases, and fines and costs amounting, in the aggregate, to £367 12s. 6d. imposed. During the same period proceedings had been taken against wholesale traders in three cases, in all of which convictions were obtained, and fines and costs amounting to £77 10s. imposed. During the period referred to 209 complaints were heard and determined by the Local Profiteering Committees. The proceedings in the case of retail traders are taken by the local committees, and in the case of wholesale traders or manufacturers by the Central Committee.

GRENADA (SEDITIOUS PUBLICATIONS).

80. Mr. R. RICHARDSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Ordinance entitled the Seditious Publications Ordinance has been passed in the Legislative Council of
Grenada, and has been transmitted to the Colonial Office with a view to its receiving the Royal Assent; whether, among other things, this Ordinance will make it an offence punishable with two years' imprisonment and a heavy fine to publish anything with the intention to misrepresent the motives or intentions of the Government or to excite dislike or discontent; whether the Ordinance gives the Governor the power to prohibit the importation of any book or periodical into the island; whether the Ordinance gives the power to judges and magistrates, sitting not in open court but in chambers, to make an ex parte order suspending any newspaper published in the island for a period of 12 months; and whether the Government will state what the reason is for the introduction of this legislation and will see that the Royal Assent is withheld in order that the mater may be inquired into and discussed by this House?

Colonel WILSON (for Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The position is as stated in the question. The chief object of the Ordinance is to prevent the introduction of seditious matter into the colony from abroad. The provisions of the Ordinance will be carefully considered before any advice is tendered to His Majesty in regard to it, but no such undertaking as that suggested in the last part of the question can be given.

DESERTED CHILDREN (BRITISH DOMINIONS).

81. Sir R. NEWMAN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State will confer with the Governments of the British Dominions to ascertain if steps can be taken to deal with cases where men domiciled in their Dominions and lately stationed in this country who, having got women into trouble, have returned to the Dominion without making any provision for the children these women have given birth to and of whom they are the fathers; and whether efforts will be made to prevent these men continuing to escape their liability and continuing to throw the whole burden upon the unfortunate mothers?

Colonel WILSON: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the suggestion made in the question, and the Secretary of State
for Home Affairs is being consulted on this matter.

JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

85. Sir A. YEO: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the urgency of the matter, he will expedite the introduction of legislation to empower local authorities to pay reasonable contributions to the funds of national and district, or provincial joint industrial councils, which have been or may be established and recognised by the Ministry of Labour, for industries and services in which such authorities are concerned; and if, pending the introduction and passing of such legislation, he will issue a circular under the Local Authorities (Expenses) Act,1887,to local authorities intimating that these authorities may contribute to the funds of such joint industrial councils without liability to surcharge?

Questions in similar terms stood on the Order Paper in the names of Mr. Hallos and Mr. Jephcott.

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend hopes to introduce legislation for this purpose at an early date. In the meantime, if any such expenditure comes before a district auditor, an application may be made to my right hon. Friend for sanction under the Local Authorities (Expenses) Act,1887.

HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN MAIL CONTRACT.

90. Sir OWEN THOMAS: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in considering the tenders which he has invited for carrying the Irish mail from Holyhead to Kingstown, he will bear in mind the position of the large number of sailors employed by the City of Dublin Steamship Company, which has held the mail contract for the best part of a century, these men having established their families at Holyhead and Kingstown on the understanding that their employment was permanent, which would not be the case should the contract be given to another company?

Mr. PEASE: I have not yet invited tenders, but am about to do so. If the City of Dublin Company does not continue to carry the mails, either because
it does not tender, or because its tender is not accepted, I have no reason to doubt that it will recognise any proper obligations towards its employees. Such obligations cannot properly be transferred to the taxpayer. The placing of the new contract must be governed solely by consideration of the public interest.

ST. VINCENT, CAPE VERDE (BRITISH CONSUL).

4. Mr. RENDALL: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of his statement that the Treasury had been requested by the Foreign Office to sanction the appointment of a British Consul at St. Vincent, Cape Verde, such sanction has been given; and, if not, why has the Foreign Office not pressed an appointment which it is necessary should be filled at once if British interests are not to be prejudiced?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I hope that a decision on this question will be reached very shortly.

Mr. RENDALL: I put down a question two or three months ago and got a definite answer that the Foreign Office were only awaiting the sanction of the Treasury, and my question is directed as to why the Treasury has not given its sanction.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I was not aware of the previous question, but I think that there is a discussion with the Treasury now on the subject.

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

46. Major Sir KEITH FRASER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the question of altering the hours for supplying alcoholic beverages in clubs on Sundays to 7 p.m. till 10 p.m. instead of from 6 p.m. till 9 p.m. in view of the fact that 6 p.m. summer time is 5 o'clock (tea time) and that the members of the working men's clubs do not as a rule go to their clubs before 8 p.m. during the summer months?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies which I gave yesterday on this subject, and I am now informed that the matter will be considered by the Control Board.

HUNGARY.

49. Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Prime Minister whether he can do anything to prevent the execution of Oscar Levai, the secretary of the Postmen's Union, recently sentenced to death in Buda-Pesth for offences alleged under the Commune?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The person in question, Oscar Levai (alias Lerner), was, I am informed, never a postal employé. According to the Hungarian authorities, who have furnished His Majesty's High Commissioner at Buda-Pesth with full particulars of this case, Levai had been guilty of the murder of two persons with his own hand. He was publicly tried and legally condemned by the competent Hungarian tribunals. In these circumstances, the matter is clearly not one in which His Majesty's Government can properly inter vene.

Sir J. D. REES: Are there any circumstances in which the Government could properly intervene in such a matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Government have been trying from time to time to make representations, but it is not considered desirable to make representations in this particular case.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the many allegations of the Hungarian Government, is His Majesty's Government taking any steps to check the statement about these men?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant gentleman may be perfectly sure that the High Commissioner has inquired very carefully into this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER.

Major O'NEILL: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he can state the number of civilian casualties in killed and wounded in the recent fighting in the town of Londonderry, and what steps the Government propose to take to put a stop to further bloodshed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The County Inspector, Londonderry, reports that nine civilians were killed and from 15 to 20
wounded, Brigadier-General Carter Campbell, Commanding Officer, has gone from Belfast to Derry with full discretion to deal with the situation and with adequate force.

Major O'NEILL: In view of what has happened, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was apparent there was not an adequate force to deal with the situation, and in view of the extreme gravity of the position, will he take immediate steps to see that sufficient force is sent to that city to maintain law and order and to protect the people against further outrage?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply which I got from the Chief Secretary yesterday was that the force then was adequate, but that he had sent the General Officer Commanding the district with instructions to call for whatever force he considered necessary.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it true, as reported to-day, that the magistrates of Derry have made serious complaints as to the management of the troops?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot answer that.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the great gravity of the situation, and the fact that practically civil war has broken out in His Majesty's home dominions, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of moving the Adjournment of the House and himself making a statement on the whole situation in Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I fully realise the gravity, but I could not make any statement in regard to the position which would be new. All I can say is that we at once in London took steps to satisfy ourselves that the Irish Government were using every weapon in their power to deal with the situation.

Mr. LYNN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that a dastardly attack was made on the Assistant Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Dublin this morning and whether he has any information to convey to the House on the subject?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): Mr. Roberts, Assistant Inspector-General of the Royal
Irish Constabulary, was going in a motor car between Amiens Street Station and Dublin Castle at 10.15 this morning. The car, which contained a police driver and three constables, was fired upon in Beresford Place near the railway station by men armed with revolvers who had concealed themselves behind the pillars of a railway bridge. The first volley struck both Mr. Roberts and the driver, who, however, continued to drive. The fire was returned from the car and continued from the pillars of the bridge. At least two bombs were thrown at the car. Mr. Roberts has a bullet wound in the head, but it is thought that the wound is not dangerous. Constable Path, the driver, was shot through both legs, but the wounds are not dangerous. It is not known if any of the attacking party is wounded.

At the end of Questions—

Colonel ASHLEY: rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The failure of His Majesty's Government to maintain law and order in Ireland in connection with recent occurrences in Londonderry and Dublin."

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, MR. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, not fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen,

The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past eight this evening.

NEW MEMBER SWORN,

THOMAS WINTRINGHAM, Esquire, for the County of the Parts of Lindsey (Louth Division).

BILL PRESENTED.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL,—

"to amend the Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1887," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by the Lord Advocate; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

(GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [MONEY]).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Resolution of the Committee on Government of Ireland [Money] may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the Committee, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the Report and Consideration of such a Resolution."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask for an explanation as to why this is necessary?

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It was owing to want of foresight on my part that this Committee stage was not put down last week for last night. I do not know that it would have made much difference, but that is the reason.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Noble Lord has given a reason for this proposal, but it is a Motion which is not to be taken as a precedent.

4.0 P.M.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I suggest that the Government should not press this Motion. At 8.15 o'clock, the Adjournment Debate will take place, and Clause 17, which is that under discussion on the Bill, is in no sense a money Clause. The first Clause in which money matters are raised is Clause 22. Clause 17 deals with the representation of Ireland in this Parliament. I am informed that in one of the previous Bills a Clause on this subject occupied five days of Debate, and on the last Bill one day. I presume the Financial Resolution will take some little time to discuss, and then we shall have only something like three hours and three-quarters to discuss Clause 17. I do not think it is likely we shall get beyond Clause 18. Is it worth while to alter the old financial customs of the House, when with perhaps the exception of civil war in Ireland the financial position is the most important we have to deal with, and especially so when you will gain very little by so doing? I do not think it would be wise even if you were going to gain. In the future this precedent may be quoted. To show the importance of these stages of Committee and Report on Financial Resolutions, does the Leader of the House recollect
that a Government was defeated on the Report of a money Resolution on the last Irish Bill? Now the Committee stage and Report stage are to be jumbled into one, and at 8.15 o'clock we have the adjournment, and possibly hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will all be pushed into a corner and be unable to discuss this Resolution. There is nothing to be gained by it. Supposing we do lose one day, that is the worst that can happen. I do not think the Bill is of such vital importance that the loss of one day need distress us. I do not see any great desire on the part of my hon. Friends from Ireland to hurry on the proceedings by one day.

Captain CRAIG: How would the right hon. Baronet like us to express our desire to hurry on matters? We should be very glad to do so.

Mr. BONAR LAW: If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I think that I shall be able to shorten the proceedings. I quite admit that this is a very bad precedent. The only justification for it was that we do attach some importance to a day at this stage of the Session, but my right hon. Friend has convinced me that he and some of his friends have it in their power to prevent us gaining anything by this Resolution. I am a practical man, and therefore I do not propose to proceed with it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WAR PENSIONS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 125.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 125.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to,—

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
2016
Motherwell and Wishaw Burghs (Amalgamation and Extension) Order Confirmation Bill,
Irvine Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,
Dumbarton Burgh Gas Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the taking from time to time of a Census for Great Britain or any area therein, and for otherwise obtaining statistical information with respect to the population of Great Britain." [Census Bill(Lords.)]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill,—pThat they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, viz.: "That it is expedient that the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Widnes Extension) Bill be referred to the Joint Committee which is appointed to consider the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill."

Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords], Criminal Law Amendment (No. 2) Bill [Lords], and Sexual Offences Bill [Lords],—That they have appointed a Committee of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords], the Criminal Law Amendment (No. 2) Bill [Lords], and the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords], and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of Members to be joined with the said Lords.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).

Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from
Standing Committee B: Lieutenant-Colonel Buckley.

STANDING COMMITTEE E.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee E: Sir Arthur Shirley Benn and Mr. Carr.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee E: Mr. Wintringham.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).

Captain STARKEY reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [MONEY].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session, to provide for the better Government of Ireland, to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament of any salaries, remuneration, pensions, superannuation, and other allowances, gratuities, or compensation for the payment of which to, or in respect of the services of, Judges and Irish officers, officers of the High Court of Appeal of Ireland, or officers or constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, or of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, provision may be made in pursuance of the said Act, and also of the expenses of the Civil Service Committee established by the said Act, and also of any sum for the payment of which out of the Exchequer provision may be made by the said Act in the event of the failure of the Government of Southern Ireland or of Northern Ireland to make any such payment."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: (Minister without Portfolio): I think I ought to call the attention of the Committee to the altered form of this Financial Resolution. It was our intention to move a Resolution covering the whole Bill. This is a limited Resolution, and it is intended to cover the Clauses of the Bill other than Clauses 18 to 34 inclusive, which are the Financial Clauses. When in Committee we come to those Clauses we shall ask leave to postpone the consideration of them, and we shall have to introduce another Financial Resolution to support them. This particular Financial Resolution does not, in fact, cast any final charge upon the Treasury; it merely enables the Reserved Services to be paid for by us, and, in turn, to be deducted from the funds which will subsequently go to the Irish Parliaments. The Government therefore intend to ask the House to pass this Resolution, then to postpone the Financial Clauses of the Bill, and, later on, to bring in another Financial Resolution to support those Clauses. As hon. Members who have been following the Committee Stage of the Bill know quite well, representatives of the Chambers of Commerce both in the North and South of
Ireland have asked for further information as to the basis upon which the £18,000,000 has been fixed as the Imperial contribution. That requires a review of the old Financial return between Ireland and Great Britain. That information is being got out by the Treasury, and there will be further meetings with the two groups who have asked for it. It is hoped that sooner or later they will be convinced that the White Papers that have been issued and drawn up are on a proper basis, and that the proportions between Great Britain and Ireland on the one hand, and between the North and South of Ireland on the other hand, have been properly and fairly made. The Government think that it is important that this should be thoroughly discussed, and that any further information obtainable should be prepared and ready for the House before it is asked to discuss the Financial Clauses.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to understand more definitely than I have been able to gather from what my right hon. Friend has said whether the object of this Resolution is to enable the discussion to proceed past Clause 17. If it relates to the general finance of the scheme, I see no reason why it should be passed. It might wait until later we have the Report of the Committee, when we can deal with the situation as a whole.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hoped that I had explained that it was the intention when we came to Clause 18, which is the beginning of the Financial Clauses, to postpone the consideration of Clauses 18 to 34, and to ask the Committee to go on to Clause 35 and the subsequent Clauses. This Financial Resolution only relates to Clause 35 onwards. It does not relate to the financial provisions of the Bill. I must bring in another Financial Resolution before I can ask the Committee to consider the Financial Clauses. At that time I hope that I shall be able to give the further information which is now being got out.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that this Resolution merely provides for the expenses of the judges, courts, and police in Ireland, and before we pass it I think it ought to be carefully examined. As things are at present, I do not think that we are going to get anything like value for our money. I am not going to refer to the subject on which the
Adjournment is to be moved, namely, the failure of the Government to keep law and order in Ireland, but I am going to ask the House to reject this Motion, and to call attention to the none-use of the courts and the legal machinery in Ireland, which is a very serious matter indeed.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will have to find some other occasion to do that, because it is impossible on this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that this is to vote money for the judges and Irish officers, officers of the High Court of Appeal of Ireland, and officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police Court, and I object to that expenditure.

The CHAIRMAN: That will come up in the Committee stage. This Resolution only authorises the consideration of certain provisions in the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that by passing the Committee stage and the Report stage of this Resolution, we do not approve of the expenditure of money on these services?

The CHAIRMAN: Wo de not vote any money by this Resolution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, I have no objection to it at all.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask two or three questions. The Resolution provides for payments to the judges and Irish officers, officers of the High Court of Appeal of Ireland, and officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police Force. There is no limit to the Resolution. It is a blank cheque. As I understand it, it means that this particular Force will be handed over to the Irish Parliaments in a very short time. Am I to understand, if we pass this Resolution, that we shall be liable at all times to pay the salaries of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force? There are three Financial Resolutions relating to the Government of Ireland Bill. Apparently the remaining two are not going to be moved, but I want to know why
the Government are in such a hurry. If it be necessary to do all sorts of things, why not have one Resolution instead of three? I understand that the Government are going to bring in another Financial Resolution later on. I want to know whether Clauses 18 to 34 are going to be postponed. I did not quite follow the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I always like to answer any direct questions put to me by the right hon. Baronet. He first asked whether we are to be liable for all time to pay the salaries mentioned in this Financial Resolution. He can give the answer very much better than I can. His experience will tell him that it does not impose any such liability.

Sir F. BANBURY: It gives the Government power, when they come to the Bill, to provide that the salaries of these people shall be paid for all time.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: When we come to that Clause, I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend, if he has any objection, will raise it.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will you listen to me?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We always listen very attentively to my right hon. Friend. He also asked why there should be another Financial Resolution. I thought that I had explained it. We intend to ask the Committee to postpone the Financial Clauses of the Bill. This Financial Resolution is not in a form which will support those Financial Clauses and admit of them being discussed now. Another Financial Resolution must be brought in to enable those Clauses to be discussed. I have already explained why I am going to ask the Committee to postpone the consideration of those Clauses.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not objecting to that course, but do I understand that the finance of the Bill is to be recast?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No; my right hon. Friend must not understand that. We are considering the basis upon which the calculations have been made. Of course if there were anything radically wrong with them, they would have to be recast, but no one has been able to point
out to me that anything is radically wrong with them, and I do not think there is. Anyhow, when the time comes, we can discuss it. I am trying to give the information to those entitled to have it—Members of the House and those affected by it—to allow them to make up their minds whether this is or is not a fair basis. I am giving all the information the Treasury have got,and if it is not a fair basis, no doubt they will point it out; and if it is a fair basis, no doubt they will acquiesce in the Financial Resolution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Considered in Committee [EIGHTH DAY].

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Representation, of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.)

Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) After the appointed day the number of Members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall he forty-two, and the constituencies returning those Members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies named in Parts I. and II. of the Second Schedule to this Act except the universities constituencies therein mentioned, and the number of Members to be returned by each such constituency shall be the number mentioned in the third column of those Parts of that Schedule.
(b) The election laws and the laws relating to the qualification of Parliamentary electors shall not, so far as they relate to elections of Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, be altered by the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, but this enactment shall not prevent the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland from dealing with any officers concerned with the issue of writs of election, and if any officers are so dealt with, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to arrange for the issue of any such writs, and the writs issued in pursuance of the Order shall be of the same effect as if issued in manner heretofore accustomed:
2038
(c) On the appointed day, the Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall vacate their seats, and writs shall, as soon as conveniently may be, be issued for the purpose of holding an election of Members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the constituencies, other than university constituencies, mentioned in Parts I. and II. of the Second Schedule to this Act.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in paragraph (a) after the word "day" to insert the words "and until the date of Irish Union."
The object of this Amendment is a simple one. If it is carried, it will have this result. Until the date of Irish Union, that is, when the two local Parliaments unite, there will be an Irish representation, whatever be the numbers, in this House, but, after the date of Union, Irish representation will cease altogether. As hon. Members will remember, this is a very old question, over which there have been many fights in the past, and I am not going in any detail into the past history of it. I will only say that in each of the previous Home Rule Bills, the question of Irish representation in this House has been regarded as a very important one. In 1888, Mr. Gladstone attempted to exclude Irish Members of Parliament altogether from this House. In 1893, he attempted to retain them at first for certain limited purposes, and afterwards for all purposes, and in the last Home Rule Bill—the Act of 1914—they were to be retained for all purposes. My proposal is, after the date of Union, Irish representation here shall cease altogether. It seems to me to be an important question for this reason: the presence in, or absence from, this House of Irish Members seems to me to be an outward sign of the kind of government that we intend to give to Ireland. If it is intended that the government of Ireland is to be only limited to local government, then it stands to reason that both before and after the date of Union, Irish Members must continue to sit here. If, on the other hand, it is the intention of the House that, at any rate, after the date of Union, Irish self-government should be full self-government, then I urge that we must treat Ireland as we treat the other Dominions, and allow it full
dominion status, with the necessary corollary that Irish Members after the date of Union shall not continue to sit in this House at all.
It comes, then, to this: The Committee has to decide whether, after the date of Union, the status of Ireland shall be the status of Quebec or Ontario, or whether it shall be the status of the Dominion of Canada. It is my firm conviction that, after the date of Union, that is, when the North and South have themselves agreed to Union, it would be much safer and much better in every way to give the Irish Government full Dominion status, with all its necessary corollaries, with no Members in this House, no Imperial contribution, full control over local government, full control over Income Tax, Customs, and all branches of Irish revenue and expenditure, and I am convinced that, unless we follow some such course as that, we shall never escape from the great complications in which we are being involved by the attempt, on the one hand, to give self-government to Ireland, and, on the other hand, to retain all kinds of Irish services under the control of this House. I urge, therefore, that by passing my Amendment we should show in a concrete form that, at any rate, after the date of Union, the government we are prepared to give to Ireland shall be full Dominion status. I believe that that would be a good thing for Ireland. I believe that it would be much better if, after the date of Union, Ireland should not have thrust upon it the duty of sending Members to this House. It seems to me that Ireland will require in Ireland itself all the Irish talent that is available for its own Government. The country is a small one, and, even with all the richness of political talent which Irishmen possess, I believe that it will be extremely difficult for Ireland to find enough men with the talent and the leisure to sit in the two Chambers of the united Irish Parliament, and at the same time to send 40 or 50, or whatever may be the number, of Irish Members to this House. From the point of view, then, that the retention of Irish Members in this House compels and perpetuates absenteeism from Ireland, I say it would be much better that all the political talent available in Ireland should be devoted to
Irish government in Ireland itself. I believe, also, that, so long as Irish Members continue to sit in this House after the date of Union, the old disputes between England and Ireland will be perpetuated.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I really do not think the Amendment justifies a speech which covers that ground. The only purpose of this Amendment is that if and when the Irish Union comes about, it will be necessary for Parliament to reconsider the question of Irish Members sitting in this Parliament. That is the limited effect of this Amendment. It would require a much larger Amendment to raise these questions as to what is going to happen at that period. I think the most we can do under this present Amendment is to ask for the insertion of these words in order to compel the reconsideration of the question at that point.

Sir S. HOARE: May I put this point to you? In 1912 a Debate of a general character was raised, I think with yourself in the Chair, upon almost an identical Amendment. The Amendment was a restrictive Amendment. So far as I remember, it took this form. Sir Felix Cassel moved an Amendment that, so long as Ireland made no financial contribution to the Imperial Exchequer, there should be no Members in this House representing Ireland, and upon that basis you allowed, within certain limitations, a general Debate upon the whole question. I have referred to the Debate, and I think that is a correct description of what then took place.

The CHAIRMAN: I think my hon. Friend is reminding me of my inexperienced days.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I submit this to you? As I understand my hon. Friend's Amendment, it is that, unless further provision is made, the Irish Members shall not sit in this House upon the Union taking place. I would respectfully submit to you it is in order to discuss the desirability of Irish Members sitting in this House or not sitting in this House after the Union has taken place, and all the necessary implications of that; otherwise I do not see how we can discuss the question whether it is right or wrong that the Irish Members should sit
in this House after the Union has taken place. Surely that is a matter which, somehow or other, the Committee ought to have an opportunity of discussing.

The CHAIRMAN: This Clause begins with the words "Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine".

Lord R. CECIL: That is always so.

The CHAIRMAN: Obviously it is a question whether there is to be a limitation in point of time, but I do not think we can raise it here. On the question that the Clause stand part we can raise the question whether there are to be representatives in this House.

Sir S. HOARE: I think, then, I should be in order in developing what I wish to say on the following lines. The Bill as it stands draws a distinction between what is to happen before the date of Union and what is to happen after the date of Union. Before the date of Union, a number of services are to be retained by the Imperial Parliament—services such as the postal service, customs, and income tax. After the date of Union, another situation is contemplated, under which the Post Office will be transferred to the United Parliament, and under which it is, at any rate, suggested that both customs and income tax may be also transferred to the United Irish Parliament. Moreover, the other most important service, the control of police, as the Bill is at present drafted, is definitely transferred to the United Parliament. The Committee will see that the question of Irish representation should depend upon these two stages in the development of Irish government. So long as important services such as the police and the control of taxation are retained by this House, so long must there be a certain number of Irish Members here to watch over the interests of Ireland that the Imperial Parliament is still controlling. After the date of Union that situation will be entirely changed. Certain important services will have been definitely transferred, and if other Amendments that stand in my name were accepted other services would also be transferred, with the result that Irish self-government would be practically government of a Dominion character. I say that some distinction ought to be drawn in the matter of Irish representa-
tion between these two stages. It seems to me to be indefensible to say that forty-two Members should represent Ireland in this House regardless of the fact that until the date of Union practically all the Important Irish services will still be controlled by this House and that after the date of Union all the important services will, as I hope, be controlled by the Irish Parliament.
I should have thought that, as long as these important services still remain under the control of the Imperial Parliament, Irish representation in this House should be considerably greater than the forty-two Members who are contemplated by the Government in the Bill, and I should have thought that Ireland had a complete claim, as long as these services are still managed in London, for full representation in accordance with her population. At the same time, I should have thought that after the date of Union, when Ireland will, as we hope, be really managing its own affairs, Irish representation here should cease altogether, and that we should not be faced with the anomaly of Irishmen interfering in the local affairs of England, Scotland and Wales, whilst English, Scotch and Welsh Members will have no say in the local affairs of Ireland. That, in a few sentences, is my contention—fuller representation here as long as important Irish services are retained, but as soon as those Irish services are handed over on the date of Union to the Irish Parliament, no Irish Members at all at Westminster. I venture to think that the Government will be well advised to accept some such proposal as this, that they should say that for the interim period before the date of Union it is necessary for various reasons to reserve certain important Irish services, but that they should let it be known in Ireland that after the date of Union we are prepared to give Irishmen full Dominion status, with all the implications that it carries with it. It has seemed to me, as the discussions on this Bill have progressed, that we have often lost sight of the question of ultimate Union, and that what is wanted now is some definite offer to the constitutional Nationalists in Ireland, that when we talk of Irish local government we really mean what we say, and that by stating clearly that after the date of Union there will be no Irish Members in this House, we mean that to
be the outward and visible sign of the Dominion status that we are prepared to confer upon Ireland. On that account, I was very glad to read the words of the Prime Minister, as reported from the speech that he made on Saturday to the trade union delegates—
Come into partnership with us; come into it on equal terms. We frankly invite you to a partnership, a partnership where we recognise your nationality; not a partnership where we trample on your nationality, but a partnership where we recognise it.
I believe that, though this Amendment may only raise one corner of the question, yet none the less, if it were accepted, it would prove that we really intend that after the date of Union Irish self-government shall be self-government of a Dominion status.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): My hon. and gallant Friend has really covered in his Amendment the whole ground and the whole history of these proposals in previous Bills. All those who took part in the Debates at that time will remember as vividly as I do the prolonged discussions over the question of the representation of Ireland in this House. There was a proposal made by Mr. Gladstone, and fought with great vehemence in this House for some considerable time, known as the in-and-out scheme. That, I think, has now been abandoned by everybody who has considered it, as it was certainly defeated at the time by the great mass of arguments brought against it, and certainly all those who have tried to ascertain what should be the right representation for Ireland in the Imperial Parliament, including the Committee of which I was a member and which produced this Bill, satisfied themselves that the in-and-out proposals were unworkable and that it would be futile to attempt any reproduction of them. The question, therefore, really comes to this—are you to have in any form of devolution representation in this House or not? The effect, as I understand it, of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, would be to decide quite definitely that at a particular time Ireland would cease to be represented here. Has my hon. and gallant Friend put the case quite correctly? I think not. He takes the Bill as it stands, and he says that to-day
certain powers are reserved, that certain other powers are to go over subsequently, and that Customs and Excise are to go. The Clause dealing with Customs and Excise is a purely permissive one, enabling the Joint Exchequer Board to consider, on certain representations made to it, whether or not Customs and Excise should be transferred.
I gather—I am not quite sure—from my hon. and gallant Friend's speech, that he is sincerely anxious that these two Parliaments should unite. It is not for me to speak for the Northern Parliament, who are very well represented here and can put their own case, but if I know their views and opinions at all, I am quite certain of this, that they will never consent, if they can help it, to be divorced completely from the Imperial Parliament. I am convinced of that, and if it is made, as my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to make it, a definite provision in this Bill that upon union there is to be no Irish representation in this House, I do not believe the Parliament of the North of Ireland would ever consent to Union: and I say quite frankly myself, as an English Member, that if that is to be a condition, I hope the Northern Parliament never will consent to Union, because I cannot imagine anything more retrograde or more unfortunate than that in any scheme of devolution which we may bring into practice here, we should cut off the Irish representatives entirely from this Parliament. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the Government of Ireland, as he views it in the future, as Dominion government. Well, even if Customs and Excise were to go, if all the reserved powers were to go, surely you cannot accurately describe that government as Dominion government so long as you retain here the entire control of the armed forces of the Crown—an J I do not suppose my hon. and gallant Friend proposes to hand them over—and so long as this Parliament is the centre of discussion and debate in regard to all our great Imperial concerns.
I have never forgotten a most significant fact in regard to the first Home Rule Bill, when one of the greatest imperialists that ever lived, the late Mr. Cecil Rhodes, threw the whole of the weight of his authority and power into the scale in favour of retaining the Irish Members in this Parliament. I remember discussing it with him in another part
of this House, and he told me that he had no very strong feeling about the particular constitution of subordinate Parliaments, but he said that the main principle of the Imperial Parliament should be to keep there the Members of all the local Parliaments, whatever form of local self-government you may ultimately adopt. That is the reason why the Government have drawn the Bill as it is, and why we propose to resist the Amendment. I do not say anything about the numbers, because that comes on a subsequent Amendment, but the suggestion that we should now definitely lay it down that when Union takes place, whatever may be the conditions then obtaining, there is to be a final severance of Irish representation from this House, is to take a step that we regard as most unfortunate, and which, therefore, we must resist.

Earl WINTERTON: The jungle of illogicality in which we are wandering has become so thick that no longer is it a question of being able to find a path through the jungle; it is no longer possible to move anywhere. Really we are wasting our time when we view the situation outside and the situation inside this Committee this afternoon—a handful of hon. Members here, and Ireland in civil war. I feel strongly tempted to ask you, Sir, to accept a motion to Report Progress, but coming to the merits of the Amendment itself, and the answer which has been given by my right hon. Friend, I am bound to say that, while I do not altogether agree with the mover of the Amendment, I think the Government's attitude is utterly and completely illogical. If the Government wish to take up the attitude, which they are perfectly entitled to do and for which I think there is a great deal to be said, that nothing can be put in this Bill with which the Ulster Members do not agree, let them say so, but do not let them attempt to find reasons for an attitude of mind for which it is impossible to find any form of logic or reasoning whatever. My right hon. Friend has made a most amazing statement. He said that so long as you retain in your hands the armed forces of the Crown, you could not be said to be granting Dominion Home Rule. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if in the course of his long political career
he has ever studied the constitutional position of Australia and New Zealand. Who has been defending Australia and New Zealand for many years back? The armed forces of the Crown and the British Navy, and if the British Navy had been taken away or ceased to exist Australia and New Zealand would have been at the mercy of their enemies. And yet the right hon. Gentleman says you cannot have Dominion Home Rule if you retain the power of the Army and Navy in your own hands. The right hon. Gentleman also went on to say that the Northern Parliament would never consent to divorce itself from this House. I am sure if you read the Press generally and ascertain public opinion, the prevailing impression is that the Government do not mean to work this Bill even if it is passed. If, however, they mean to pass it, they must consider what will be the effect on the Southern Parliament as well as on the Northern Parliament.
I cannot see any use taking up time discussing this question, because the thing is absurd. I have not gone sufficiently fully into this question of the representation of Ireland in this House to be able to give a detailed argument; but surely it is the duty of the Government to give a much fuller answer on this question. The memory of the First Lord of the Admiralty goes back many years, and he says that this was a matter that was discussed at great length in connection with previous Home Rule Bills, and it was admitted to be one of the most important questions with which the Committee has to deal, and yet we have no real answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, who simply makes a general statement about the Members of the Northern Parliament not agreeing. Although I do not agree with that point of view, I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) would move to Report Progress and put an end to the hypocrisy of this discussion with Ireland in a state of civil war, and let us get back to real business rather than continue this academic discussion by the side of which a Debate in the Oxford Union is something real and lasting.

Major HILLS: The First Lord of the Admiralty has entirely refused to accept this Amendment. I want to call his attention back to his Bill. He has often
talked of this measure as a federal Bill, and now he talks of it as devolution. May I tell him that his Bill is in its essence a dominion Bill and nothing else.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): May I call the attention of the Committee to the actual Amendment, which is to insert the words "and until the date of Irish Union." I understand this Amendment is to enable the number of members to be reconsidered in the amended Union, and that is the only question before us, and I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to keep to that point.

Earl WINTERTON: I should like to put this point of Order. We are discussing the representation of Ireland in this House after a definite date, and therefore I submit that this Amendment raises the whole question of the merits or demerits or representation or non-representation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I could not allow that. The only question before us now is whether, at the date of union, the whole question can be reconsidered.

Sir S. HOARE: Is it stated quite definitely that there will be no Irish members, with the necessary corollary that there will be dominion status?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I could not admit a general discussion of that nature on this Amendment, and if hon. Members wish to raise that question, they will have to put down an Amendment in such a form that the House will clearly understand that that question is to be discussed. I cannot understand how hon. Members who are not present could imagine that a question of that kind would arise on the Amendment now before the Committee.

Major HILLS: I am raising the point that after the date of Irish Union, Irish Members should not come to this Parlialiament. I support that contention by articles drawn from the character of the Bill itself. To put it quite shortly, the Bill is of such a character that it is out of the question that Irish Members should come here after the date of the Irish Union. Until the Irish Union takes place, there are all sorts of important services which are reserved, such as the postal service and the police service.
After the date of Irish Union the Parliament of Ireland will have complete control of the Post Office, Savings Bank, postage stamps and the police, and the intention of the Bill clearly is that, when they choose to ask for it, they may have control of the Customs. What do you expect the Irish Members can do when they come here? Under this Bill no Irish question can come before this Parliament, because all essential matters are transferred to Ireland except defence.
The First Lord of the Admiralty has made what I cannot think was a considered statement, that complete control of the armed forces of the Crown is always given to a Dominion Parliament. May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the state of things that has existed in Canada during the last 20 years? Until a few years ago, we even controlled the harbours of Halifax and Esquimalt, and yet Canada had full Dominion government. I know that they have now been handed over to Canada, but she has just as much a Dominion status as she had before. I want very strongly Irish Union to take place, but, after all, the present attitude of mind of the Members who form the Northern Parliament may not be the attitude of their successors, and although the present Ulster Members might vote against union if it carried with it the removal of Irish Members from this House, I do not think we ought to affirm it permanently.
I agree with my hon. and Noble Friend that you cannot always give way and entirely confine your Bill to what the Ulster Members will accept. We have to look to the future, and I cannot see that it would be a serious obstacle to union, for the very simple reason that nobody who looks round the world and see what Dominion government is, could conceive a united Ireland would work this Act of Parliament unless it carried out the intentions of Dominion status and had no Members coming to this House. The Government have not been at all clear as to what they intend by this Bill. In certain parts of it they talk of it as Federal, but I hope they will accept this Amendment. A great many of us supported this Bill for one reason only, and that is that we hope out of it may emerge a single and a united Ireland. In this connection I would refer again to what passed last Saturday. Surely when the
Prime Minister talks of an equal partnership on equal terms he means more than the limited Bill which the First Lord of the Admiralty has in his mind. I do not intend to go any further on this point, because I know the general question of Federal as against a Dominion Parliament is outside your ruling. This is not a Federal Bill, and it contains powers which render necessary the exclusion of Irish Members from this Parliament. All the main provisions of government are given to the Irish Parliament, and that being so, they cannot have representation here as well.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. E. WOOD: I think I can support my hon. and gallant Friend if he goes to a Division, and for this reason: that I do regard the Amendment, so far as I have been able to follow this discussion, as a test of what are the intentions of the Government in the Bill. I regard it as more than a test of their intentions; it is a test of the methods by which they propose to give effect to their intentions. With that is bound up, in my judgment, the prospects of the Bill having any chance of success. Moreover, I think, speaking within your ruling, Sir Edwin, that this is the last occasion on which it is possible, before we go to a division, to come to grips with any of the underlying principles which, we are told, are in the Bill. I do not think that anybody who happens to be in the House this afternoon during the sitting of this Committee can fail to be struck with the totally artificial and unreal atmosphere to which my hon. Friend behind me has referred. When I hear people talk of the necessity of a new atmosphere in Ireland I feel disposed to think that it is even more necessary to have a new atmosphere in the House of Commons. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that if we have now to create a new atmosphere in the House of Commons we should not do it unless and until we get down to realities and face the facts. It is with that view that my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment.
As he said, the object of this Amendment is to recognise in the Bill the desirability of granting a Dominion status after the date of the Union. I was not fortunate enough to hear the all too short reply of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill; but I understand that in the minds of those who oppose
this Amendment is the idea that it is "separatist" in character. That is an objection I find it difficult to follow in view of the fact to which I think my hon. Friend drew attention, that all those who feel most the force of that argument voted for this very Amendment in 1912 or 1913. I may claim that I am so far consistent that I voted in 1912 for the same Amendment for which I shall vote again this afternoon. But I think my right hon. Friend and the Government are totally misled as to English opinion if they think that English opinion will revolt against this Amendment on the ground of it being "separatist." As I understand English opinion—and this is very pertinent to the consideration of the Bill and to this Amendment in particular—English opinion at the moment is this: it is profoundly bored with a measure that it thinks is evidently so unpopular in Ireland. It thinks that that measure is unlikely to secure much improvement, and it is therefore reluctant to run risks for the sake of uncertain advantage. If that be so—and that I think is the present English view—I think it is true to say that English opinion, while exasperated with Irish conditions—which, of course, the Rules of Order will not allow me to develop—is very uneasy at the only alternative prospect offered by the Government in the event of this Amendment being rejected, namely, resolute Crown Colony Government. I confess I share the uneasiness. English opinion and a great many of the supporters of the Government in this House have imagination enough to realise what that will mean.
I would in conclusion put this to my right hon. Friend; that it is necessary for us really to face the facts. Is not the real fact this, whether you like to admit it or not—however much you wrap it up—there is in fact existing in Ireland at the present moment something very like a state of war. If there is a state of war you have to do one of two things: either make war in the form in which I think English opinion would not readily tolerate, or take steps to make peace. If you are to take steps to make peace that means you must be prepared to stretch your offer in order to have some chance of its securing acceptance. I do not know that I ought to develop that aspect further; but I fully recognise the reluctance of this House and the nation to stretch an offer without knowing whether it will be accepted. I
fully recognise that there is a feeling I very strongly share. On the other hand, I feel no less certain that it is perfectly idle to suppose that many of the leaders of Irish opinion would even consider an offer which was merely hypothetical. Therefore, those who think as I think on this matter are prepared to take risks and to turn the hypothetical offer into a firm offer. It is because I believe that the only alternative to that, that so far has been suggested by the Government, holds out no prospect but long wandering in a morass and ending in disaster, that I shall support my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lord R. CECIL: I should like to emphasise one or two observations which have just fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend. In the first place, I ask the Government quite seriously to consider whether they think that to pass a Bill of this magnitude in an atmosphere of this nature is really a practical proposition? Does my right hon. Friend on the front bench really think that the House, constituted as it is at present, will help matters? I do not believe there is one single Member of the Treasury Bench who has the slightest belief that this Bill will do anything whatever to solve the Irish question. Does he, therefore, really think it is worth while under these circumstances to go on with the Bill? I quite recognise it would not be in order to say more than that one sentence on that subject, but I do ask my right hon. Friend very seriously to consider whether it is right to play with a great question of this kind, involving the safety of the Empire and the well-being of so many of our fellow citizens.
About this particular Amendment, I confess my difficulty is, I do not feel that it makes a very serious improvement in the Bill. At the same time, so far as it goes, it does appear to me to be right. I agree most fully with my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, that the one dominant sentiment about this Bill amongst English electors, whom I have had the privilege of mixing amongst during the last few months, is that they want to get rid of the Irish question. I am quite sure that whatever happens to this Bill, the Irish Members are going to remain in this Parliament, even with all the powers which they have exercised with such disastrous effect on the British Constitution in times past,
and with all the disposition to extort further concessions in whatever direction they desire from the feeble0—or shall I use the expression of the Lord Chancellor, so that I shall not be thought in any way discourteous to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty—the invertebrate Government. Therefore I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I can assure my right hon. Friend there was only one objection raised by one hon. Gentleman to this Amendment. It was raised by that hon. Member that, if you passed this Amendment, the result would be that the Northern Parliament will never agree to Union. That is the sole objection. I cannot think my right hon. Friend is right. If Ulster ever does become convinced that it is desirable to enter the Home Rule Parliament, it will be because she is satisfied that she can obtain justice and good government from such a Parliament. I do not think, then, if that came to pass, that they would desire in any way to diminish the authority and position of that Parliament. I think they would probably desire in that case—if they ever did go so far—I quite recognise that it is not at all likely that they will for a very considerable time—but I think if they ever did, they would desire that the Parliament should have the full Dominion status, and that, if and so far as they were to have part and share in the government of the Empire, it must be through a real Federal Government, and a real Federal Parliament. Whenever we have that, then will be the time for them to go into that Parliament. Personally, I myself do not think that they ever would consider the acceptance of Dominion status, until some such provision was made. The Government seem to think of this Parliament as a Federal Parliament, or capable of being converted into a federal Parliament. It cannot be done. This Parliament is a local Parliament. It has, no doubt, Imperial duties thrown upon it, but it is a local Parliament. The old objection, which I am not going into now, but which is familiar to everyone who has lived through this controversy, of allowing the Irish Members who have got their own Parliament to come in and decide what should be English government and what are English interests, is overwhelming.
I am quite satisfied that you will never get a solution of this question unless you
are prepared to face that fundamental difference. My right hon. Friend made a declaration which I think will be interpreted all over the world as a definite decision against the Dominion solution of the Irish Question. That is a very serious matter. This Bill has a very frail life under any circumstances, but if it goes out to the world, to our Colonies, and to America—

Mr. LONG: What is that?

Lord R. CECIL: I shall be very glad to give way to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. LONG: I only desire to say that I am not conscious of having said anything to-day that by any possibility could be regarded as a final pronouncement on the question as to whether or not Ireland should have Dominion status. The speech of my hon. and gallant Friend referred to two different periods, the present and the future. I was pointing out in regard to the future that his proposal was not altogether the Dominion status. I do not think I said anything—if I did, I did not intend to give that impression—that for all time any expansion of the Irish people in this matter was barred by the Government.

Lord R. CECIL: I am vary glad to have elicited from my right hon. Friend those observations. It makes the thing very much clearer, but really what he did say quite definitely was that he should be against any proposal by which the Irish Members ceased to sit in this House. He must be perfectly well aware—I think I am right in saying this—that every advocate of the Dominion solution does contemplate that the Irish Members should cease to sit in this Parliament I may be wrong in this, but so far as I have read the literature of the subject, I think I am right. If that is so, he is definitely against it, as I understand it; against what is ordinarily described as the Dominion solution—that is to say, in the words of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), it is contemplated that, even in the largest extension of this Bill, Ireland will still be in the position of Quebec and not in the position of Canada. If that is the decision of the Government, then I think the sooner this House really realises the extraordinary futility of proceeding with this Bill the better it will be for the
country and the better, ultimately, for the Government.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I had not intended to take any part in the Debate, but I feel constrained to do so by the speech to which we have just listened. I was waiting with intent to discover where my Noble Friend was about to take the lead of the Home Rule group which has been conducting this Debate. I have not satisfied myself—

Lord R. CECIL: My attitude is, I think, perfectly clear. I felt it was very undesirable to raise the question of the future government of Ireland until we get peace there, and then, if we get peace, I am quite satisfied that you should in any settlement go as far as you can to meet the Irish demand. It is fantastic folly not to do that.

Mr. McNEILL: I do not very much dissent from that proposition, but the Noble Lord must go further than that. He knows perfectly well that there is no evidence whatever to show that Dominion government would be satisfactory to Irish opinion. There is only one other point which has arisen in this Debate on which I wish to say a word. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and others have suggested that the Government in rejecting this Amendment are merely guided by a desire to satisfy Ulster opinion. I am not entitled to speak for Ulster opinion, although I am very familiar with it, but I think my hon. Friends from Ulster have shown by their attitude on this Amendment, and by taking no part in this Debate, that they are completely indifferent. It is not the case that they have brought or are bringing any pressure whatever to bear on the Government to reject this Amendment. I believe I share their views in being completely indifferent whether this Amendment is carried or not.

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. What I said was that the main reason given by the First Lord of the Admiralty was that the Amendment would not be acceptable to Northern Irish opinion.

Mr. McNEILL: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said nor is my Noble Friend quite correct in his recollection of what he himself said. My
Noble Friend said he could quite understand the logical position of the Government if they said they would put nothing in their Bill which was not satisfactory to Ulster, and that if that was their position it would be more honest to say so. But my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench said he objected to the Amendment, not because of any opinion that Ulster had expressed with regard to the Amendment, but because he said with his knowledge of the North of Ireland the effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be that the Northern Parliament would never vote for Union. That was a totally different thing, I think I am justified in pointing out that, as far as this Amendment is concerned, so far from Ulster taking up any strong position or putting pressure on the Government they are totally indifferent. The reason for their total indifference is this. My right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill has correctly gauged what the result would be. I am perfectly certain if this Amendment were put into the Bill any last lingering doubt with regard to Union between the North and South of Ireland would disappear. I am not at all sure, so indifferent have I been on the matter, that I should support the Government at all if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Major Hills) which has persuaded me to vote for the Government, because he pointed out quite fairly that one could not be certain with regard to the future. It is always possible that the opinion which prevails on this subject to-day in Ulster may not be found amongst their successors, and therefore as I acknowledge the existence of that shadow of doubt as to the stability of the position in that respect, I will support the Government in order to be quite certain of not running into the danger against which I have been warned by the hon. Member for Durham. Otherwise it is a matter, so far as I am concerned, of no importance at all.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I rather hesitate intervene in what is certainly a very interesting Debate, because it has produced four or five speeches which I think not inaccurately reflect the now very general opinion that this Bill is doomed. It is difficult to speak on this Amendment without making a Second Reading or
Third Reading Speech, but I will endeavour as far as I can to confine myself to the Amendment. It is clear from what the hon. Member who last spoke has said that the interpretation generally put on the remarks of my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill are not wholly inaccurate. It is clearly the case that, if the Dominion Home Rule which would naturally follow as a logical sequence of this Amendment were carried were really expressly contemplated, you might as well rule out the North of Ireland, because it would result in there being no longer any representation of Irish Members of Parliament in this Assembly. But that is a very short-sighted point of view, because by the time the Union comes surely there will have been very large developments on Federal lines. The representation of Irish Members here on purely Imperial matters would no longer be objected to, as hon. Members from the North of Ireland seem to contemplate. The passage of this Amendment would, at any rate, give a lead, and that is really not so unimportant a matter as many seem to think. I entirely agree it seems futile to discuss a measure of this kind, which has no support practically outside the Treasury Bench, and with Ireland in a state of civil war. But it is because of the glimmerings of hope that emanate from the bringing forward of such Amendments as this, moved by Members of this House, who speak under conditions of very great difficulty, but with all sincerity and earnestness, and with a knowledge which comes from studying the subject which nobody can deny, that if they go to a Division I will most certainly vote with them, not with any idea of throwing myself in opposition to the Government, but to show that, as far as I am concerned, I most deeply appreciate the spirit in which these hon. Members are studying the Irish problem, and are prepared to face facts as they are and to take the consequences. It is only by steps of that kind—I will not say they are particularly bold steps; in fact, this is a very safe step, because there are a lot of contingencies which must offer themselves for solution before things get anywhere near the sphere of practical operations, and because there are in this House many Members who normally support the Government, and who are prepared to face the future and to take bold steps by which alone this great problem can be
adequately dealt with, that, as far as any expression of appreciation on my part is worth anything, I venture most heartily to offer it to them.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: As I read the Amendment on the Paper the result of it would be to provide that the representation of the Irish Members in this House shall continue until the day of union, and the question whether the Irish Members shall be represented here or not will have to be determined on some future occasion. But that is not the interpretation put upon it by the Mover who has definitely stated that his purpose in moving the Amendment is to settle, once and for all, Irish Members shall not be represented in this Parliament after the date of the union. If that were the effect of the Amendment, and if the rest of the Bill remains as it stands to-day, we should then find ourselves in the old difficulty; we should have taxation without representation. But my hon. and gallant Friend, with perfect consistency has stated that he intends to move further Amendments later on which will radically alter the provisions of the Bill as it stands and which will make it perfectly clear that Irish Members shall no longer sit in this House, because they will have complete fiscal independence. That proposition is a simple one no doubt, but it is not the Bill. It is not a fundamental and logical portion of the Bill. It can hardly be wondered at that many Unionists regard a proposition of that kind with considerable hesitation in the present condition of Irish affairs. If the Amendment were not as interpreted by its Mover in its literal sense, and if as I submit it left the question over for further consideration at a later period, I should have been able to vote for it, but I must confess that when we are told about the unreality of the proceedings, I am driven to ask whether we ought to support a proposal which will give Dominion status to a united Irish Parliament. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) that what the people of this country want to do is to get rid of this Irish question, and that they are prepared to go a long way to get rid of it. I agree with my Noble Friend (Earl Winter-ton) that, if you are going to make peace, you had better make an offer that has some likelihood of being accepted. Although my right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, suggested that you could not have Dominion status without
giving the right to armed forces, which is perfectly correct, I would remind hon. Members that, once you have a united Irish Parliament, even though you do not give them the right to raise forces, you cannot possibly prevent them from doing so. If I could see some reasonable certainty that a solution of that kind would be accepted in the spirit in which it was offered, and that it was going to be a settlement, I should be prepared to give it careful and, I think, favourable consideration. At present, however, I find myself with no such certainty. I have no reason to believe that the promise to-day of Dominion status on the day of union would bring a single Sinn Feiner into line with this country and, that being so, I feel that I must vote against the Amendment.

Sir FREDERICK YOUNG: Whatever may be the literal meaning of this Amendment, I think that one thing which emerges from the Debate is that those who have moved and supported the Amendment wish to bring to the test the question whether there shall be eventually, at the date of union of the two Irish Parliaments, what they call Dominion Home Rule, or whether there shall be some Home Rule of a lesser quality. It is true that the general attitude of people in this country and throughout the Empire is that something should, if possible, be done to bring about a settlement of the Irish question. I think, however, that, in discussing the matter and trying to interpret—or rather, to guide—public opinion, we should let it be fully understood what Dominion Home Rule means. I venture to say that from a reading of this Debate the average person outside would not get a true grip of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out that Dominion Home Rule involves the control of armed forces, and he was met by an extraordinary argument from the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) that there was nothing in that, because the case of Australia showed that for a considerable period we had there a Dominion with Dominion Home Rule and with the protection of this country. The protection of this country and the control of armed forces are, however, two entirely different propositions. Australia, as a young portion of the Empire, naturally was glad to enjoy a great degree of naval protection from this country. In addition to that, however, Australia has had for many years, in different forms, its own internal
army, and that is an aspect of the question which has to be faced when one uses the expression "Dominion Home Rule." If this Amendment means, as apparently its Mover and its friends would have us consider it to mean, that Ireland, at the time when this union takes place, shall have the control of its armed forces, let that be clearly stated, so that, if public opinion is willing to go that length, it may see to what length it is going. Not one of the hon. Members who supported this Amendment brought forward that one vital question of the control of armed forces. If you have Dominion Home Rule, with its full implication of the control of armed forces by the Dominion Parliament in Ireland, you are very near that final step which was pointed out, I think, by the Leader of the House at an early stage, namely, that that portion of the Empire which enjoys that full Dominion Home Rule is practically in a position to separate itself from the Empire whenever it likes. That has to be faced honestly by hon. Members in this House and by the general public, if they are prepared to accept Dominion Home Rule. Accepting the interpretation of the Amendment which the Mover and its friends have given to it, I feel, as one who wants to maintain the integrity of the Empire, that it is impossible for me to support this Amendment.

Colonel GREIG: A good deal has been said to-day about English opinion. I desire to say one word from the point of view of a Scottish Member, who, I believe, represents a large volume of opinion in Scotland. I was one of those who fought in the old days for Home Rule. The great argument levelled against us was that our proposals meant separation. What a change has come over the scene! Here we have hon. Members advocating the excision of these words, which would in effect give Dominion Home Rule to Ireland—would in effect sever altogether the connection between Ireland and this Parliament through the presence of Irish Members here. A Home Ruler like myself always resented the suggestion that we were separatists in the old days, and we were as confirmed then as we are now against separating Ireland in that sense. We always test the point by this: Just as much as we would claim for Scotland, we would give to Ireland, but not one inch more. We are as much a nationality as Ireland. We do not wish
to be separated from this Parliament, except in regard to our local affairs. If Ireland gets control of her local affairs, we are willing to give it to her. We would demand the same for ourselves, but we demand our share here in controlling the affairs of the Empire, by representation in this Parliament. It may be that for a short time there would be a certain amount of inconvenience by having a number of Irish Members here until other arrangements were made; and, until Scotland got its local control, these Irish Members might control it. We are quite prepared to put up with that. Contrary to what has been said by hon. Members, on the Front Opposition Bench, we Scotsmen who are old Home Rulers, and who are keen and interested in giving Home Rule to Ireland, will now fight to the death against anything which would put an end to the supremacy of this Parliament, or separate Ireland from it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down widens even further the Debate, already stretched rather wide, on the subject of this Amendment. I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which was that Federalism is to be the furthest limit to which we ought to go in an effort to settle and deal with the Irish problem.

Colonel GREIG: Yes.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is his final word?

Colonel GREIG: It is my final word.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If that be his view, as a Home Ruler who is a Liberal, let us know where we are. What becomes, of the Prime Minister's statement to the railwaymen? What becomes of the equal partnership between Great Britain and Ireland? What becomes of all this talk, which undoubtedly is going about, of Dominion Home Rule? The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill) said something which I really do not think is quite accurate. He gave it as his opinion that there would be no greater support for a Dominion settlement than for this. Bill in any section of Irish opinion. That is a very strong statement and a very remarkable one. Certainly, all the information that I can get is to the effect that, at any rate in Nationalist Ireland and in the whole of Southern
Ireland—that is to say, Unionist as well as Nationalist—there is at present no support for this Bill, but that there is a growing support in the South for a solution on a Dominion basis. I am not saying that that is possible or right, but the hon. Member gave it as his opinion that it was not so. This Amendment has been the means of trying to ascertain where hon. Members, and, above all, where the Government stand in relation to the future status of Ireland inside the British Empire; that is to say, whether it is to be a partnership on a Dominion basis if Irish union is brought about, or whether they are still following up the threads of the old Federal solution. I was one of those who worked before the War for the Federal solution and advocated it; but I am beginning to wonder how far the Federal solution has really any question of reality about it. It is being more and more borne in upon my mind that the only two possible alternatives are the Union—which means, of course, military administration—or something in the nature of Dominion Home Rule; that is to say, if you are going to have Home Rule at all, you have got to "go the whole hog." On the basis of this Bill, we must admit, it means two Dominions and not one. The hon. Member for Swindon (Sir F.Young) raised the original problem in connection with the Dominion question, namely, that of armed forces. I am not at all sure, in view of what is happening in Derry to-day, and has been happening for the last few days, that, in spite of anything in this Bill, the Ulster Parliament will not have to set up its own Volunteer Army to defend itself in its own area. If it is going to be responsible for Tyrone, it will have to do that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We must keep to the Amendment. I cannot allow the discussion to become as wide as the hon. Member is making it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The speeches made in the discussion of the Amendment hitherto have been very wide, but I quite understand that you are anxious to bring us back to the definite Amendment. Unless some prospect is held out that, if Irish Union ever takes place, the relationship between the two islands shall be an equal partnership within the Empire, I think there is very little or no chance of
even a small modicum of support being attracted towards this Bill from Nationalist Ireland.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I must confess that, so far as I have listened to this Debate, it seems to me that very nearly all the logic is on one side, and very nearly all the sound sense is on the other. I am conscious of the fact that by that statement I shall probably lose the very few friends that remain to me, but I will go on to say that I think the logic is on the side of those who are supporting this Amendment, and that the sound sense, if I may respectfully say so, is on the side of those who are opposing it. What is this Amendment? Frankly and avowedly, it is an Amendment in favour of Dominion Home Rule. One may agree or disagree, but, frankly, it is that after a certain date the Irish Members shall no longer sit in this House. Hon. Members who make that suggestion are entirely free to hold that opinion, but that is the opinion of an out-and-out Home Ruler. That is the opinion of an out-and-out Dominionist. It is inconsistent with what we were told was the central fabric and texture of the Bill. All through the discussions we have been assured by those who were responsible for it that its texture was not Dominion Home Rule, but Federalism, and nothing would have induced me to vote for the Second Reading if I had not accepted those assurances.
Perhaps I ought, in shame, to confess that I did vote for the Second Reading much less in reliance upon the text of the Bill than upon the assurances of those who framed it and were responsible for bringing it forward. I will make the further confession that I hoped that in the course of the discussions in Committee it would be strengthened in the federal direction. I have myself made some efforts in that direction. I think I have been perfectly consistent. I am frankly a Federalist. I am frankly opposed to Home Rule in the Dominion sense. I am a Unionist first and last, but I am willing to go as far as Federalism in the direction of Home Rule. That is my position, and I believe it is a position which is shared by a good many Members of the House. At any rate, it is mine, even if it is shared by no one else. It is in the light of that opinion that I examine the Amendment. It says after a certain date there shall
be no more Irish Members in this House. I entirely agree that it is a perfectly reasonable position to take up, and it is one which I have taken up, that in this Bill we have, or imagine we have, something which could be used as a framework for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the federal position, and it is not the position of my hon. Friends who are supporting and are responsible for the Amendment, and I therefore most earnestly trust that the Government will not move one inch in the direction of those who are proposing this and similar Amendments. Those hon. Members are entirely entitled to the view they hold that there is no way of conciliating the great body of opinion in Ireland except in the direction of Dominion Home Rule. They may be right in saying there is logically nothing except a choice between Union and Dominion Home Rule, but I do not believe for a moment that the solution which they are proposing would conciliate opinion in Ireland. That is only my opinion against theirs, but it is an opinion which I have maintained from the first. Therefore, I trust that if only in deference to those of their supporters who still desire to call themselves Unionists, though Federalists, the Government will resist this and all similar Amendments.

Captain ELLIOT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Greig) put one side of the case from the Scottish point of view. I wish to make it clear that Scottish opinion is by no means unanimous in that way. He claimed that nothing should be given to Ireland which should not be given to Scotland. I am strongly opposed to that. Ireland is a pathological problem. It must be treated as a disease. The idea that when a man has a running sore on one leg, and it must be cut off, for the sake of symmetry you are going to cut off the sound leg is a thing I will oppose as long as I have breath in my body. I realise now why the Unionist party fought all those years against Home Rule. It was the chuckle-headedness of the Liberal party.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Captain ELLIOT: I did not mean to intervene, and I have perhaps been betrayed into unparliamentary language and wideness of range. The issue was raised before me by another hon. Member that the argument against Dominion Home Rule was that you could not give a Home Rule to Ireland that you were not prepared to give to Scotland. Scotland does not want Home Rule to anything like the same extent that is necessary for Ireland. Though I shall support the Amendment on general grounds of a much wider status for Ireland than is being conceded to it under this Bill, I do not in any way recede from the position that I object to any such solution for Scotland. That is a perfectly logical statement. I am merely stating that the Irish position is not a position of one kind of government or another. It is a root question going to the very constitution of the British Empire. The Irish Members are quite right in saying it is a very shadowy and unreal business because it specifically states that it is not to take place until after the date of Irish Union and they can go away and pay no more attention to the Bill. But that does not get away from the fact that the South of Ireland will demand, and will not be satisfied without a very much larger concession of power than it is getting or is likely to get under any federal system. Those who support the Amendment think it should have larger powers than it will get under the federal system. All who are against it think it should have no larger powers than it would get under a federal system. That is a genuine division of opinion on which I think we should go to a division and register our names for and against the federal as against the Dominion solution of the Irish question.

Sir S. HOARE: One would have thought from the speceh of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) that the very proposal to exclude Irish Members was something almost too horrible to mention. In 1912 a similar proposal was made to exclude 42 Irish Members from this House, and the First Lord of the Admiralty voted for it. Similarly the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Greig), who had no words bad enough for the very idea of excluding Irish Members, I believe also voted for their exclusion. This Debate has served a very
useful purpose because it has brought into clear relief the issue between the Dominion status and Federalism. On that account I am very glad we have had it.

Question put, "That the words 'and until the date of Irish Union' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 229.

Division No. 154.]
AYES.
[5.55 p.m.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Johnstone, Joseph
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Kenyon, Barnet
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Kiley, James D.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Briant, Frank
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Carr, W. Theodore
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Winterton, Major Earl


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark



Gould, James C.
Rae, H. Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Remer, J. R.
Mr. Dudley Ward and Colonel Sir R. Sanders.


Hancock, John George
Stephenson, Colonel H. K. R.
R. Sanders


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Atkey, A. R.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lloyd, George Butler


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lonsdale, James Rolston


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lorden, John William


Barnston, Major Harry
Forrest, Walter
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Barrand, A. R.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lynn, R. J.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Gange, E. Stanley
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gardiner, James
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mallalieu, F. W.


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Glyn, Major Ralph
Middlebrook, Sir William


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Mitchell, William Lane


Borwick, Major G. O.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Moles, Thomas


Breese, Major Charles E.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Bridgeman, William Clive
Greer, Harry
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greig, Colonel James William
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Britton, G. B.
Gretton, Colonel John
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison, Hugh


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hallwood, Augustine
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Bruton, Sir James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mount, William Arthur


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Murchison, C. K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hanna, George Boyle
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Butcher, Sir John George
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)
Nall, Major Joseph


Campbell, J. D. G.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Casey, T. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cautley, Henry S.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Parker, James


Clough, Robert
Hinds, John
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pearce, Sir William


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hood, Joseph
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)
Percy, Charles


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Perring, William George


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Jesson, C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Prescott, Major W. H.


Dawes, Commander
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Purchase, H. G.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Edgar, Clifford B.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Reid, D. D.
Stewart, Gershom
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Whitla, Sir William


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Sturrock, J. Leng
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Sugden, W. H.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Rodger, A. K.
Sutherland, Sir William
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Taylor, J.
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak),


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Woolcock, William James U.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Seddon, J. A.
Tickler, Thomas George
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Turton, E. R.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Simm, M. T.
Waddington, R.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Younger, Sir George


Stanton, Charles B.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)



Starkey, Captain John R.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Sir S. Hoare and Major Hills.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "forty-two" ["and shall be forty-two"] and to insert instead thereof the word "forty-six."
6.0 P.M.
This Amendment should be read in connection with the Amendment to the Schedule on pages 897–8 of the Order Paper, which will have the effect of providing that the representatives who now sit in this House for Irish Universities shall retain their seats. At the present time Dublin University (Trinity College) has two representatives; Queen's University, Belfast, one; and the National University of Ireland, one. The curse of Irish politics is that they are at present controlled by secret caucuses working by persecution and tyranny. University representatives have in the past been of one type of Irish representation, but they have been entirely independent, and have been free from the other dangers of the present control. Therefore, under the present conditions, they are pre-eminently the type of representative needed in Ireland. Apart from this general argument, the Southern Unionists will probably have no representatives here unless this Amendment is accepted. The Imperial Parliament will have very important functions in connection with Ireland, even after the date of Irish union. The South of Ireland Unionists are about one-tenth of the population, and under this Amendment they might hope to have their views expressed by the two Members for Trinity College, Dublin. They would have one-sixteenth of the total representation of the South of Ireland in this Parliament. That is less than their numbers would strictly justify, but it is better than nothing, and it would ensure that their grievances would be
heard. I appeal confidently to the First Lord of the Admiralty to give this Amendment his sympathy and acceptance, because I know that he, perhaps more than any other man in this House, realises the cruel position in which the Southern minorities will find themselves.

Sir W. WHITLA: I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and I do so with more than ordinary pleasure, because I am very glad to find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend for the first time since this Bill was introduced. I will not discuss the abstract question of University representation. This is an entirely different question. I have the honour to represent one of these University constituencies, and I feel myself labouring under disadvantage on that account; but if I desire this Amendment to be put with all force it is because I believe in the simple justice which it will give to the southern and western Unionists. Without it they will not be represented. Dublin University has two Members, the National University one, and the Queen's University one, but I do not think this an occasion for any compromise. If I were entirely free I would throw my seat aside, much as I honour the privilege of sitting in this. House, if it would help the Unionists in the South and West of Ireland. The state of our country is largely due to the mistakes that have been made. There is a time to give and a time to withhold. This is a time to give to the loyal friends of England and to withhold when it is unjust from those of your enemies.

Captain CRAIG: I am in some doubt as to what will happen to the next Amendment, which is to leave out the word "42" and insert the word "63." If the present Amendment is carried, will it be
impossible for us to move to insert "63," or should we be allowed to discuss the matter on this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: The present Amendment is to leave out the word "forty-two" in order to insert the word "forty-six." The question I should like to put would be that the word "forty-two" stand part of the Clause. If "forty-two" is to stand part of the Clause that will rule out the subsequent Amendment. We cannot twice put it to leas e out the same word, but if the word "forty-two" is struck out of the Clause it will be possible to negative the insertion of the word "forty-six" and substitute the insertion of the word "sixty-three." For the purpose of Debate the hon. Member would be well advised to state his case on "sixty-three" on the present Amendment.

Captain CRAIG: The number forty-two was inserted in the Act now on the Statute Book. I ask the Committee to bear in mind one important fact and that is that under the Act Ireland, instead of paying an Imperial contribution, was to receive an annual sum of £1,500,000, whereas under this Bill Ireland is to pay £18,000,000 per annum. It is true that that sum is subject to amendment when we arrive at the financial clauses. As we stand at present Ireland is bound under the Bill to pay £18,000,000 a year, and if she was entitled to 42 Members when she was to receive £1,500,000 she is entitled to some increase of the number when she has to pay an annual sum of £18,000,000. I understand that 42 was arrived at roughly on the basis of one Member for every thousand inhabitants. If we are to get representation on the same proportion of population as obtains elsewhere we ought to have 63 Members. One argument against my proposition is that we ought to be content with a smaller number for the reason that we not only are permitted by this Bill to look after our local affairs, but that we are allowed to interfere with the local affairs of Great Britain. If we are allowed to look after our local affairs we do not want to interfere with your local affairs, and if there was anything to exclude us from interfering with the local affairs of Great Britain we should be glad to see it in the Bill. But so long as we are liable to be taxed, not necessarily to the extent of £18,000,000 or to any considerable ex-
tent, or to be taxed at all, we have by all the rules of constitutional law the inalienable right to have our full representation in this House. I hope therefore that the Government will consent to a larger number than the 42 Members mentioned in the Bill. With regard to the first Amendment, if it is right that University Members should come from Great Britain to this Parliament it is equally right that Ireland should send University Members too. I was not at home when the last Franchise Bill was passed, but I understand that a very clear view existed at that time in favour of extending university representation rather than taking away from it. I submit, therefore, that every argument put forward is in favour of having university representation extended to Ireland, and I trust that the Government will meet us on both these grounds.

Mr. LONG: It is for the convenience of the Committee that we should be able to discuss on this Amendment the two questions which are, however, quite distinct. Dealing with the first question, personally I am very glad that this Amendment has been moved. It affords us an opportunity of telling the Committee that it was through no intention to cast a slight upon universities, or particular universities, or upon university representation itself that the Clause as drawn did not include this form of representation. The truth is that it was felt that the presence in the local Parliaments both north and south of the university representatives would be of the greatest possible value and that it would be better to have university representation considered in that respect. But the Amendment has been moved on two grounds, first the right of universities to be represented, a right which I am glad to say has been admitted in this House continuously. Notwithstanding the drastic changes which we have made in our own Reform Bill we have always adhered to the system of university representation, and I am sure that we always shall. Therefore on that ground the case for university representation is established. But both my hon. and gallant Friends, who have spoken frequently in Debate with so much courage and resource on behalf of loyalists in Ireland, put this Amendment before the Committee on a second ground—that it is one way by which it may be possible to secure some fraction of representation for the
minority in the Southern Parliament, if things remain as they are. I am one of those who hope that law and order will be re-asserted and that long before this Bill comes into force that the country will be in a very different position, and I hope that there may be a readjustment of the divisions in Ireland which will not leave those who are loyalists and unionists in a hopeless minority. But this is only a hope and we are bound to face facts. If things be anything like what they are to-day when the time comes undoubtedly it will be necessary that unionists and loyalists should have such representation as can be secured for them to give them. To give this university representation will undoubtedly at all events enable their views to be represented here, and on both of those grounds the Government will willingly accept the Amendment.
Coming to the other question, it was raised and fully discussed on the Amendment which was disposed of on the last Division. My hon. Friend, who moved the Amendment, is quite right in saying that there is nothing scientific or logical in the selection of the particular number "forty-two," and he was jusified also in pointing out that conditions to-day are different from what they were when the Act of 1914 was passed. But the last Division shows, though I am glad to say that those who hold the view that we should at once make up our minds to concede Dominion Home Rule to Ireland are a very small minority in this House, that both here and elsewhere there is evidence that there is a very strong feeling in regard to Ireland being represented in this House while she has control of her own affairs. My hon. and gallant Friend quoted at the end of the last Debate, in my judgment quite fairly and appropriately, that in 1913 I had voted for the exclusion of the Irish Members. That is perfectly true, but he knows also perfectly well that the action which I took we were not discussing a federal plan.

Captain CRAIG: My right hon. Friend is wrong if he is referring to me.

Mr. LONG: No, I was only explaining that in discussing this question I, at all events, and the Government for which I speak, are determined throughout the whole of this measure to keep before us
what, for the want of a better name, we call the federal plan. It is quite easy for hon. Members to attack us with all sorts of small ammunition, and to say that this is not federal, and that you cannot federalise this Parliament. Everybody knows what a federal plan means. But under this scheme there is a sound federal basis, and we have a hope that in time it will be followed by the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot develop the arguments for that now, but bearing that in mind, we consider that on the whole forty-two will be a fair number for representation. My hon. Friends must realise that it is a much larger representation than many people in England consider fair and reasonable. It is a compromise, but on the whole there is justification in the fact that it was in the previous Bill. It maintains the principle of imperial representation. I do not hesitate to say that either here or out of the House of Commons I shall rejoice at any opportunity to take up the challenge thrown down to-day to maintain the view on behalf of the Government that the exclusion of Irish Members from this Parliament means eventual separation, and against that I shall always fight. This is the maintenance of the imperial situation. This retains the Irish Members here, and paves the way for the adoption of a wider federal system. On those grounds I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment for the inclusion of the university representatives, but will adhere to the number which the Government have selected and resist the proposal to extend it to sixty-three.

Sir E. CARSON: I need hardly say, as one who represented one of the universities in Ireland for twenty-seven years in this House, that I. welcome the announcement of my right hon. Friend restoring representation to universities under this Bill. It would have been a great pity, certainly as regards the university for which I was a Member, Dublin University, which has been so long associated with this House and has also been a sister university to Oxford and Cambridge, if that university had been left out in the cold when Imperial matters were dealt with in this House. There fore I feel grateful to the Government for the concession which they have made in this respect. As regards the wider
question on what basis we are to have Members here, I have rather inconsistent feelings. In the first place, I cannot help feeling that the larger the number of Irish Members who are here the more chance there will be of carrying on the same irritation that has taken place in the past and of continuing the same tendency to try to obtain votes in this House, which has done so much damage to political warfare in the past in this country, and the larger number you have here, knowing what the majority has always been and is likely to be in Ireland, the greater the demand you will have by that majority for the further separation of Ireland from England. I concede all that. In that sense, it is a gratification that we are only to have forty-six Members, but I would not be honest, having those feelings, if I did not point out that I do not believe that that can last.
This House is retaining, and I am glad it is retaining, full power of taxation for Ireland. Taxation will be raised by this House for all purposes connected with Great Britain and for Imperial purposes, entirely irrespective of what is best for Ireland. You must raise the revenue for England and Scotland, and you must raise the revenue for all Imperial matters concerning the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that you will get any subordinate Parliament in Ireland, either North or South, once they begin to understand that they are being taxed by people who have a larger right to representation, in proportion to their numbers, than they have, to be a contented people. I do not believe that the proper number, according to the Representation of the People Act for Ireland is 63, nor do I believe that when taxes are being raised, and when the amount is being fixed by this House, you will ever get contented Parliaments in Ireland, either North or South. The most extraordinary reasons were given for putting in 42 into the old Bill, instead of the proper quota from Ireland, and it was this: "True it is that you ought to have your proper number in this House if we are going to tax you, but you will not get your proper number to raise the question of the taxes here, because you are entitled to interfere in the domestic affairs of England." The moment you begin to enforce taxation which is not raised in the interests of
Ireland, but to which they have to contribute on the same basis as England and Scotland, and the moment that becomes known and comes home to the people who have to pay those taxes, they will raise the old cry of "no taxation without representation," and it will be a new grievance springing up at the very commencement of these Parliaments. I am not going to delay proceedings by doing more than point out that you are leaving behind the nucleus of a new quarrel between the Irish Parliaments and this Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (a) leave out the words, "except the universities constituencies therein mentioned."—[Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness.]

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words
But this enactment shall not prevent the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland from dealing with any officers concerned with the issue of writs of election, and if any officers are so dealt with, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to arrange for the issue of any such writs, and the writs issued in pursuance of the Order shall be of the same effect as if issued in manner heretofore accustomed.
This deals with the question of the issue of writs. If the Amendment is carried it will be for the Lord-Lieutenant, in his capacity as an Imperial officer, to deal with the Clerk of the Crown, if there is any necessity to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 to 34, inclusive, postponed.

CLAUSE 35.—(Office of Lord-Lieutenant.)

The CHAIRMAN: An Amendment which is on the Paper to this Clause is part of a preceding proposal.

Clause ordered to stand part of the-Bill.

CLAUSE 36.—(Establishment of Courts.)

The Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland shall cease to exist, and there shall be established in Ireland the following Courts, that is to say, a Court having jurisdiction in Southern Ireland, to be called the Supreme Court of Judicature of Southern Ireland, a Court having jurisdiction in
Northern Ireland, to be called the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, and a Court having appellate jurisdiction throughout the whole of Ireland, to be called the High Court of Appeal for Ireland.

Mr. REID: I beg to move to leave out the words "and a Court having appellate jurisdiction throughout the whole of Ireland, to be called the High Court of Appeal for Ireland."
Speaking on behalf of my Friends and those whom I represent, I think I can say that we are quite satisfied with the provisions made in the Bill for the local administration of justice. The last words of the Clause set up a Court having jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland, to be called the High Court of Appeal for Ireland. Speaking on behaif of the commercial community, I would say that I think there are too many appeals. Under this Bill, a man goes from the High Court in Northern or Southern Ireland to the Court of Appeal in Northern or Southern Ireland, and then to the High Court of Appeal for Ireland, and, finally, Clause 47 preserves the appeal to the House of Lords. We feel that this High Court of Appeal for Ireland is unnecessary.

Mr. T. W. BROWN: I beg to support the Amendment. The Clause as it stands adds another Court and another step, a very expensive step, in litigation in Ireland. It is not in the interests of anyone, certainly it is not in the interests of litigants, that there should be a heavy expense in cases for trial. Why there should be this extra Court of Appeal I cannot see. If a case is worthy of appeal it is taken to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland, as the case may be. In the majority of cases the litigants would probably be satisfied with the decision they got there. In the larger cases litigants would not be satisfied until they had a decision of the House of Lords. At the present time, when a new Bill dealing with judiciary is being introduced, we ought really to be going forward and removing hindrances to the smooth working of the law in Ireland, instead of adding additional burdens and making it more difficult to carry out the law.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I regret to say that the Government cannot accept
the Amendment. At present in Ireland the scheme dealing with litigation is this: The case is tried by a judge in the first instance, either with or without a jury. There is at present a right, which does not exist in England, to go in the first instance to a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division. From that Divisional Court there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and an ultimate appeal to the House of Lords. What is suggested by this Amendment is to substitute for the Divisional Court what is known as the Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland. Instead of having a direct appeal to the House of Lords it is proposed to have a Court, composed of judges representing Northern and Southern Ireland, who will hear appeals before they go to the House of Lords, so that the number of hearings will be precisely the same as at present in Ireland, in all cases. As I understand the Amendment, it is to leave out the Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland.

Mr. BROWN: The Court of Appeal for all Ireland.

Mr. HENRY: And simply to have a Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, and then direct appeal to the House of Lords. It is obvious that the result of that would be to increase very much the appeals to the House of Lords, which are far more expensive than a hearing in Ireland would be. In addition it is quite easy to conceive, and indeed it would frequently arise in practice, that a plaintiff might reside in Northern Ireland and the defendant in Southern Ireland, or vice versa. In a case of that description I think it would add very much to the confidence that the litigants would have, in the disposal of their case in one set of Courts or the other, to feel that ultimately there was an appeal to a tribunal representing both Courts. In the other case the Southern Ireland plaintiff, if he had to go to the North, or the Northern Ireland plaintiff, if he had to go to the South, would feel a grievance that he was dealing with the Court not representative of the district in which he resided. A tribunal composed of both Courts would go a long way to obviate that difficulty.

Mr. HOHLER: Supposing Southern Ireland refuses to work this Bill, how will this Clause work?

Mr. HENRY: There is a new Clause being prepared for the purpose of meeting that difficulty, and I think it is on the Order Paper at this moment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lord R. CECIL: I had given notice to move the rejection of the Clause, and I ask the Committee whether it is really desirable to have this enormously costly system of a double judicature. The objections seem to me to be very obvious. You are going to have an enormous multiplication of offices. You will have a separate judicial staff, and that involves, as the Attorney-General knows, a multitude of lesser officials. In the two parts of Ireland you are going to have separate judiciaries, and that seems to me to be very objectionable on the grounds of expense. It is perfectly unnecessary to set up a large number of officials to do judicial work in a country which already is privileged with having an excessive number, at least, so I have always understood, of judicial officers to do the work which arises in that country. Under those circumstances, you will really do a grotesque thing by creating a double judicial staff to do work which could easily, it is said, be done by half the present number of Judges. In addition, you will cause great practical inconvenience to litigants, and, so I am told, to the profession. The centre of the profession is now organised in one place. You have the actual judicial body and all the arrangements as to solicitors and counsel concentrated in Dublin far more than they are concentrated in London, because in England there are local bars.
I am much encouraged in my opposition to this Clause by the speech which the Attorney-General for Ireland made just now. In dealing with the question of the court of appeal, he pointed out that there would be no difficulty about arranging that the court of appeal should sit alternately in Dublin and Belfast, in order to meet local requirements or local prejudices. The same might be done with the ordinary courts, as long as you retained them as a central body. They could sit in Belfast if necessary. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out with great truth, that where you had the plaintiff in the North and the defendant in the South, there would be great advantage in having
a court of appeal which would speak for the whole of Ireland. Surely it would be a much greater advantage if you had a central judicial body which would speak for the whole of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman recognises there would be considerable difficulty in bringing a Northern defendant into a Southern court, and, conversely, a Southern defendant into a Northern court, and he proposed to provide for that by having an Irish court of appeal. Just consider what that means. In order to get what the litigant will regard as justice, he has to go to either a Northern or a Southern court, and then he can go to a Northern or Southern court of appeal, and from that court, he can go to the Irish court of appeal, which according to the Attorney-General, will be a very real, or at any rate, sentimental security for justice. I could understand the desire to split up the judiciary if there was widespread distrust of the present judiciary. I am always very reluctant to make any statement about Ireland when any Irishmen are present, as they naturally know more about the subject, but it would be new to me to hear, speaking generally, that there was distrust of the present judiciary in Ireland, or at any rate in the North, and I do not think there is much in the South. I never heard of it, except as general distrust of the whole present Government of Ireland. Therefore, you have got a judiciary which has the confidence of the whole country, and you are going to split that up into a Northern judiciary which will be entirely distrusted in the South, and a Southern judiciary which will be entirely distrusted in the North. In any litigation where Northern and Southern are jointly engaged, you will have the most profound distrust on the part of one or the other.
This appears to me to be a silly proposal, and I cannot see an advantage in it except the desire to make as definite and as permanent as possible the division between the North and the South. I am sure I am bound to accept what my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench say, and when they tell us that the whole of their wish has been to prepare a way for the future union of Ireland. I am sure therefore I will receive their gratitude by pointing out that to create a double judiciary is the very way to make it more difficult to bring about that union in the future. I am sure
every Member of the House who hears me, and few happen to be present, will agree that the more vested interests you create in the North and the South the greater will be the difficulty in the way of any possible union in the future. From that point of view I am sure this proposal is altogether inconsistent with the Government's own idea. There is one other objection. As time goes on you will have a different system of law in the North and in the South and different forms of legislation. You will have a judiciary to carry out those laws. I do not think it is likely there will be great fundamental changes in all the ordinary legislation in the North and the South. There may be, and I should think there will be, rather advanced legislation in the North of a labour kind, and I am led to believe that there possibly will be what my Northern friends would regard as very retrograde legislation in the South. That, after all, will touch only a very small part of those matters which are dealt with by the ordinary courts in ordinary litigation. Speaking generally, the mass of the law will remain the same, and there will be no difficulty whatever to ordinary skilled judges to administer the slight differences which will exist between the North and the South. No difficulty is experienced now by capable judges in administering far more divergent laws than are likely to exist in the South and the North. The Privy Council for instance administers laws of various descriptions and with the greatest satisfaction. Why then do you propose to create these new places with all the possibilities which they contain when you have a judicial system which can be preserved with the greatest advantage and with much greater convenience to litigants, and with a much greater chance of the full administration of justice in that country?

Colonel NEWMAN: There is no great distrust at present of the judiciary, but let us think of the situation when this Bill becomes operative. To-day I saw in the "Daily Mirror" a picture of the Supreme Court of what is called Dail Eireann. In that picture there were three young men sitting in a very good-looking court. I do not know whether the picture was faked, but they were sitting under a large
canopy with solicitors in front of them. I looked at the pictures of those three young men and they were distinguished for three things, their youth, their ugliness and their large ears. I do not know why, but it was so. As far as I can make out those are the men who are going to judge me in the future.

Lord R. CECIL: You will have a Southern Irish court, but if the idea of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the future of Ireland is correct then undoubtedly he will have two gentlemen with large ears.

Colonel NEWMAN: Even if we have any sort of Home Rule, somehow or other those young gentlemen of Dail Eireann are going to see that they become the judges, and I distrust them. If I am going to he judged for my life or my character I want to be judged by a court consisting at any rate of two or three judges from the North of Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With small ears.

7.0 P.M.

Colonel NEWMAN: Small-eared people with big brains. I do not want the gentlemen whom I have described, nor do I want on every occasion to be dragged over to London. I would rather take my chance before an appellate court consisting of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and one of the judges I have described, and another of the judges of the North of Ireland. Therefore, I do suggest that the Government will do well to keep this Clause in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I look upon the attitude of the Government with regard to the judiciary in Ireland as a touchstone of their own faith in the Irish Union, which they profess to expect in the future. If they really believe that partition in Ireland is only a transitory arrangement, there is no justification whatever for setting up these two separate judiciaries. There would be no difficulty in retaining the judiciary, which has earned confidence in Ireland, as a reserve service until Irish Union takes place. Ulster under our present system has never objected to the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts, and if the single judiciary is kept under the control of the Imperial Parliament, it would no more be a Dublin judiciary than at the present time. It
would be an all-Irish judiciary, and a judiciary in which everyone would have confidence. If the Ulster party, in obedience to whose views we understand this double judiciary has been framed, fee] nervous as to the conditions in Dublin, there surely would be no difficulty in arranging for the King's Bench Division, and the Chancery Division, and, indeed, for the Court of Appeal, to have alternate session in Belfast, and, quite apart from the question of law and order, I believe there would be much to be said from the point of view of convenience to Northern litigants. But two judiciaries are by no means necessary, and if you set them up, as the Noble Lord pointed out, you institute a lot of vested interests, and you bring about a very strong influence in favour of permanent partition. You create any number of new officials—registrars, chief clerks, taxing masters and a shoal of subordinates whose work is a mystery to those of us who are not lawyers. If you once get these, there will be enormous difficulty in abolishing them, and it may well prevent the re-establishment of a single judiciary if Irish Union ever comes about.
Besides that, it will be a great inconvenience and a very great expense to the public to divide up legal administration in this way. You will have to keep your legal records in two places, erect new buildings, which might be justified if it is a permanency, but certainly is not justified if the Government are right in telling us that divided Ireland is only to last for a few years. It will create very great practical inconvenience, because Ireland is one community, and however we may legislate in this Bill, there is at the present time a great deal of intercourse between the six counties and the rest of Ireland. Is it not obvious that commercial relations must be very much handicapped and must face a great risk of additional expense and delay if legal contracts have to be enforced in different courts of law? Is it not certain that there will be great and unnecessary inconvenience when people get a judgment, say, in the North of Ireland which does not run in the South of Ireland, and they have then to go to a Southern court and get the judgment over again because the litigant has moved out of the jurisdiction of the court? I do not know what the Bar thinks about it in Ireland. It would be only human nature, perhaps, if it were to support the
proposal, because undoubtedly it would mean an enormous number of new jobs. I see in the Schedule it is provided that any existing judge in Ireland, under ordinary circumstances, will be transferred to the courts of Southern Ireland, unless he expressly desires to go to the North of Ireland. In other words, all these new judges for the North of Ireland will presumably be appointed from among the Bar, who will naturally, in some ways, be glad to see all these new appointments. I do not know one way or the other about the Bar, but I do know that the solicitors in Dublin, and I believe the solicitors throughout Ireland, view with grave misgivings this proposal. The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland passed a resolution at a meeting of their Council on 12th May:
The Council of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland desire to record their disapproval of the proposed duplication of the judicial system in Ireland. The Council concur in the view that the setting up of a second judiciary is not a necessary consequence of the other proposals of the Bill.
The High Court of Justice in Ireland has enjoyed the confidence of all classes, and there is no doubt that these local courts, which will be looked upon as only enjoying inferior jurisdiction, will not get the same consideration as the courts which now exist. Therefore, both from the point of view of efficiency of legal administration, and for the convenience of litigants, and to give effect to the Government's avowed policy of affording facility to the Irish Union, I beg the Government to reconsider this question.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Both my Noble Friend who moved the Amendment. and my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last opposed this on the ground that it means that vested interests will be created which will be a bar to future Union, and, indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend suggested this was really the touchstone with regard to the sincerity of the Government in their statement that they hoped these two Parliaments would, by consent, unite and become one Parliament. I hope to be able to show the Committee that there is nothing inconsistent in the plan which the Government has adopted in this Bill. It follows very closely the plan adopted in Canada. In each of the Canadian provinces there is a Provincial High Court with a court of first instance, and a court of Appellate jurisdiction, and there
is the Federal Court of Appeal, to which appeals come from the Provincial Appeal Courts, so that the precedent of Canada has been closely followed. Of course, that does not prove that the creation of separate judiciaries might not be a bar to Union, but I can give an instance which, I hope, does prove conclusively that it is not a bar to Union, because in South Africa the same thing happened. In Natal, in Cape Colony and elsewhere there were High Courts and Appeal Courts, and even when the Union of South Africa came, those High Courts became divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa, and the Supreme Court of South Africa became the Appellate Court of the Divisional Courts which had previously been independent. Vested interests there did not prevent union, nor will vested interests here prevent union, if union is desired.
Let me take another point that my Noble Friend made. He said, "Consider the expense." I think he expected a large number of extra judges and all their attendant officials. At the present moment in Ireland there are fifteen judges, and under the scheme of the Bill there still will be fifteen judges, no more and no less. There is, therefore, no increase, as I understand it, in the number of judges, and nobody who realises that the great business community of Belfast cannot institute any legal proceedings without sending a writ to Dublin can possibly say that the present system could, in any event, be allowed to go unreformed. That a great city like Belfast should not have the same facilities as Liverpool or Newcastle, and have legal Registries, is indeed absurd. Additional officials are not created because of the scheme of the Bill. There will be some additional officials, but those officials are necessary, and would be exactly the same if you started a Registry in Belfast. There must be greater facilities given to Belfast, and there will be no more judges, and, I think, no more officials, because, in any event, the present system could not be allowed to stand. Then it is said that it is extremely inconvenient for the barristers to be split up in this way. In England there is no difficulty, and why should there be difficulty because there is a Bar in Belfast and one in Dublin?
With regard to solicitors, at present there is one Incorporated Law Society for the whole of Ireland. When this Bill becomes law, what the Belfast solicitors will do, no doubt—there is already a Law Society, although not incorporated, in Belfast—will be to make their own Incorporated Law Society, and they will then have the same facilities with regard to their practitioners as the solicitors practising in Dublin. So really, whether it is looked at from the point of view of expense or the point of view of practical difficulty, there is really nothing, it seems to me, in any of the difficulties that have been advanced. When we come to the question of whether the plan prevents future Union, then, I think, the example of South Africa is quite sufficient to show that there is nothing inherent in this scheme which will hinder Union—and Union, of course, will come in spite of any judicial scheme if Union is indeed desired.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I really must say one word in support of this Amendment, on which, I hope, the Noble Lord and his friends are going to divide. If they do, and carry the Amendment, it will remove one more attempt to divide the two districts of Ireland. That is why I shall vote with them if they divide. Apart from that, I think one word is required in answer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman). Why should he go out of his way to jeer at the alleged picture in the "Daily Mirror" of the Sinn Fein Court? It has been stated at that Box by the Attorney-General for Ireland that these Sinn Fein Courts are functioning and administering a rough form of justice, and, as a matter of fact, I have seen in the Irish papers a great many cases in which they have carried out the functions of preserving the law. There is one particular case in which a bank was robbed of £16,000 in one of the Southern towns, and the bank robbers were rounded up and the money recovered, and the men were tried before one of these courts, and the whole thing was carried out by officials of these courts. They are illegal courts, I know, but it shows that it is possible that they can be just, and the fact remains that Unionists are going before them to-day in order to get protection for their farms. I only make these remarke as perhaps an
ineffective protest against the whole attitude of mind of such a typical Southern Unionist as the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley, who thinks that nothing good can come from any judicial court set up in the South of Ireland. Events in the last few weeks and months have, I think, proved that these courts can function, in spite of the continued persecution of the Executive in Ireland, and what is the use, therefore, of conjuring up all these bogeys? It is not because I am afraid of any injustice being done in the Southern judicature that I shall support the Amendment, but I shall support it in order to attempt to sweep away one more artificial effort of the Government to divide Ireland.

Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the position of solicitors under this double judiciary. I do not profess to know the details of the position of solicitors, but I am informed that under the Bill as it stands a solicitor practising in Southern Ireland would be debarred from practising in the North.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No.

Sir S. HOARE: I understand the right hon. Gentleman safeguards the position of existing solicitors, but that solicitors qualifying after the passage of the Bill will only be able to practise in one or other of the areas. I cannot believe that so ridiculous a proposal could be contemplated by the Government, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy me that that is not the intention of the Government, and that if it is not they will insert an Amendment in the Bill making it quite clear that even under this ridiculous system of a double judiciary a future solicitor will be able to practise both in Southern and in Northern Ireland.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I understand it, all the rights of existing solicitors are preserved. As regards the men who are newly admitted, they will be admitted to the roll either of the northern or the southern area or both if they choose to qualify for practices in both courts. There is nothing wanted in the Bill. If the qualification in the north was the same as in the south and an individual fulfilled the other conditions, there need be no question about his practising in both. It does not depend on us. If the local legislatures are to have power to legislate, they must have these powers as well.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is not in agreement with the Council of the Incorporated Law Society in Dublin, who have carefully considered this matter.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will certainly look into it.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: As the law is at present, a solicitor cannot be on the roll in Dublin and in London. If he wants to be entitled to practise as a solicitor in London, he has to have his name struck off the roll in Dublin before he can do so, and the Incorporated Law Society in Dublin have no doubt in their minds that unless some further provision is put in the Bill it will not be possible for them to practise in both places, and that they will have to take their choice between Belfast and Dublin, just as at the present time solicitors have to take their choice between Dublin and London and cannot possibly practise in both.

Sir R. NEWMAN: If we are going to have a Division on this Clause, which I hope we shall not, I should like first to ask for some information. I do not know any case in which there are two Parliaments with one single judiciary, and it seems to me that from the mere fact of establishing two Parliaments we should have two judiciaries. I speak as a layman, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) is a King's Counsel, but it seems to me, as a layman, that it would be extremely difficult to have only one judiciary in a case like this, where one judge would be supposed to know the law of two Parliaments. As to the question of this being a touchstone of the general principle, I will point out that we have two judiciaries in Scotland and England, and I think I am right in saying that when the Union between Scotland and England took place in the earlier part of the 18th century, one of the strong points in favour of Union in Scotland was that they were not going to have the judicial system altered. Again, I speak with some hesitation, but I think I am right in saying that all the States of America have different judiciaries, and yet I never heard it said that that was a touchstone in any degree whatever as to their being united on the general principle. If we come to Ireland and England itself, we find that in the Act of Union of 1801 again there are the two
judiciaries, but that has not prevented the Act of Union being put in force. I should like to know whether the Noble Lord can tell me of any case in which there have been two separate Parliaments and one judiciary?

Lord R. CECIL: I cannot charge my memory with any particular case, but all the cases cited by my hon. Friend are cases of independent or semi-independent communities coming together. They then retained their judiciaries and a great number of other things because they desired to remain separate. The whole point of the Scottish demand to maintain their judiciary was because they desired to maintain their national life separate. I believe personally that these provisions are put in because the authors of this Bill desire to emphasise the difference between the North and the South of Ireland. They desire to keep alive as far as possible, to entrench, as some of my hon. Friends on these Benches have said, the North as far as they can so as to make it more and more difficult in future for there ever to be union in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] An hon. Gentleman sitting on those Benches said so, and welcomed the existence of the Northern Parliament because it would make the Union of Ireland less likely to come about.

Sir R. NEWMAN: The Noble Lord has not cleared up my point. Supposing I asked a barrister or lawyer in Dublin for his advice, how could he possibly be expected to give me a legal opinion as to the laws in another part of Ireland under another Parliament?

Lord R. CECIL: I do not think he would have the least difficulty. He constantly has to do it now, as a matter of fact. A lawyer constantly has to advise as to what is the true position, for instance, in South Africa, where the law is totally different. It is not a question of minor differences, but it is a distinct law—Roman-Dutch law. He may say, "I would rather you consulted a South African lawyer," but I do not think that in the near future the two legal systems of the North and South of Ireland will be likely to become so divergent as to make it a serious difficulty for a lawyer in the one part of the country to advise as to the law in the other part. I venture to think the whole thing really rests
on this fundamental difference—are you going to set up two different countries in Ireland, as different as Scotland and England, or as one State of America and another State of America? If that is your purpose, it is intelligible, but the Government should say so frankly, that they desire to make the division, and to make it permanent. That is one policy, but the policy they advocate is the opposite, that of making Ireland all one country, union being deferred for a few years in order to get rid of local difficulties. If that is the case, you ought to keep a central administration wherever you can, and I think it would be perfectly easy to keep the central administration of justice as it is at the present time, arranging, if you like, for sittings in Belfast or in Dublin according to convenience.
As far as I am concerned, I am not satisfied with the answer of the Government. My right hon. Friend said they were not going to create new offices or new expense, but he knows very well that that is not so. Of course he is going to create new offices. You cannot create a new centre of justice in Belfast without creating a number of new offices. You are going to have new buildings and a number of new offices, without doubt, and to tell me you are only going to keep the same number of judges as at present is playing with the, question. You are only going to keep the same number of judges because you have a great many too many in Ireland at the present moment, and, therefore, you have some you can spare for Belfast, but if you reduced the judges to the proper economic number in Ireland, you could not possibly carry out your scheme without an increase of judges, so that in effect you are going to increase them. My right hon. Friend did not deal for a moment with the really substantial legal point, namely, that you are going to set up two courts, a northern court, which will have the confidence of the North, and a southern court which will have the confidence of the South, and, consequently, two courts which will not command the confidence of the other province, and wherever you have litigation in which a northern and a southerner are engaged, whichever court they go to, one litigant will be profoundly dissatisfied and suspicious of the justice of the court. Nobody can deny that, and nobody knows it better than my right hon. Friend, and that is why he did not
deal with that point. This is one of the points on which, as I am told, there is considerable feeling in Ireland, and it is the kind of point on which the real distinction between the two policies rest. I do not myself care very much whether we divide or not, because I think the Bill is hopeless in any case, and I do not very much care what Amendments are put in, but if there are any hon. Members who desire to divide on this, I shall go into the lobby with them.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope the Committee will divide on this Amendment. It is rather a test of what the Committee thinks of the real tendency of this Bill. The idea of the Bill was that there should be sooner or later a united Parliament for Ireland, or, at any rate, that is adumbrated within the ambit of the Bill. Here in this special provision we are told that immediately this Act comes into operation you will have in the administration of justice a division and an irritant. Is that the way to begin a new measure of conciliation for Ireland? That it will be an irritant there can be no doubt at all to anyone associated with the administration of justice in Ireland. The present position is that whatever may be the general difficulties of Ireland on the whole, the administration of justice has worked with comparative smoothness. You have this interesting position, that strong partisan Unionists have been appointed to the Bench, and strong partisan Nationalists have also been appointed, only they are fewer in number. On the whole there has been acquiescence and growing authority up to quite recently which is very satisfactory. That is a comparatively going concern, and if the object of the Government is to have a united Parlia-

ment it seems to me to be extremely foolish to at once break up this system, have this division and set up this new irritant. For these and other reasons I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I understand the position is that if we are to have two Parliaments we are to have two systems of law, and we must have two judiciaries. I submit that at the present time in our own Empire we have one judiciary administering two different sets of laws. Take the House of Lords. We have the judicial members drawn from both England and Scotland, and indeed from the Dominions. If there is a Bill from Scotland we have deciding it, not merely Scottish lawyers, but English lawyers as well, and indeed we may have even Dominion lawyers who have no special knowledge of Scottish law in the sense that they have been trained in it. They are simply lawyers, and they are able to interpret the law when it is argued before them. The same applies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We have English and Scottish lawyers continually interpreting questions of Hindu and Mohammedan law, and to gay that a lawyer must be trained in the law of any particular part of the Empire before he is able to try a case involving a point of law arising in that particular part of the Empire is wrong. It seems to me that there is no difficulty at all in a lawyer in Ireland following the developments of law in both the different parts of Ireland. As far as I am concerned I shall support the Noble Lord in the Lobby.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181: Noes, 29.

Division No. 155.]
AYES.
[7.36 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Borwick, Major G. O.
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bridgeman, William Clive
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Atkey, A. R.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Britton, G. B.
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Captain D. C.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Bruton, Sir James
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Barnston, Major Harry
Butcher, Sir John George
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Campbell, J. D. G.
Dawes, Commander


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Dixon, Captain Herbert


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Carr, W. Theodore
Edge, Captain William


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Betterton, Henry B.
Casey, T. W.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Clough, Robert
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Rodger, A. K.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Forrest, Walter
Lloyd, George Butler
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Seddon, J. A.


Gange, E. Stanley
Lort-Williams, J.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Simm, M. T.


Gardiner, James
Lynn, R. J.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Stanton, Charles B.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Starkey, Captain John R.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Greer, Harry
Middlebrook, Sir William
Sugden, W. H.


Greig, Colonel James William
Mitchell, William Lane
Surtees, Brigadier- General H. C.


Gretton, Colonel John
Moles, Thomas
Sutherland, Sir William


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hallwood, Augustine
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mount, William Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Hancock, John George
Nall, Major Joseph
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hanna, George Boyle
Neal, Arthur
Weston, Colonel John W.


Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whitla, Sir William


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Parker, James
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Perring, William George
Wood, Major S. Hill. (High Peak)


Hinds, John
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Woolcock, William James U.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Purchase, H. G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Rae, H. Norman
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Reid, D. D.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Jesson, C.
Remer, J. R.



Johnson, Sir Stanley
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)



Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)



NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gould, James C.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.



Hayward, Major Evan
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)



Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 37 (Divisions and constitution of Supreme Court for Southern Ireland) and 38 (Divisions and constitution of Supreme Court for Northern Ireland), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 39.—(Application of existing enactments and rules.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and any modifications or adaptations made by Irish Transfer Orders under this Act, all enactments relating to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland and the judges and officers thereof shall apply to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Southern Ireland and to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Northern Ireland respectively, and the judges and officers thereof, as they apply to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland and the judges and officers thereof, and as if for references to the High Court of Jus-
tice in Ireland there were substituted references to the High Court of Justice in Southern Ireland or the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, as the case may be, and as if for references to the Court of Appeal in Ireland there were substituted references to the Court of Appeal in Southern Ireland or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, as the case may be:
Provided that where under any such enactment an appeal lies to a Divisional Court, whether by way of motion for new trial or otherwise, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal in Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, instead of to a Divisional Court.

(2) The existing rules of Court made under the enactments relating to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland shall be deemed to have been made under those enactments as applied by this Act to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Southern Ireland and the Supreme Court of
Judicature in Northern Ireland respectively, and shall have effect accordingly with the necessary modifications in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively, and any such rules of Court may be altered or annulled as if they had been made under those enactments as so applied.

(3) The Judgments Extension Act, 1868, shall apply to the registration and enforcement in the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively of judgments obtained or entered up in the Supreme Courts of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland respectively, in like manner as it applies to the registration and enforcement in the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, of judgments obtained or entered up in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England.

(4) A judge of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland shall not be named in a Commission of Assize or other commission, whether general or special, in Southern Ireland, and a judge of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland shall not be named in a Commission of Assize or other commission, whether general or special, in Northern Ireland.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "under any such enactment" and insert instead thereof the words "but for this provision." Leave out the word "lies" ["an appeal lies to a Divisional Court"] and insert instead thereof the words
under Section Fifty-one of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877, would lie."—[Mr. D. Wilson.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 (Constitution and officers of High Court of Appeal for Ireland), postponed.

Clause 41 (Jurisdiction of High Court of Appeal for Ireland), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 42.—(Provisions as to Lord Chancellor.)

(1) The provisions relating to the tenure of office by a judge of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall apply to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect—

(a) the powers of the Lord Chancellor with respect to the custody of persons and estates of idiots, lunatics, and persons of unsound mind;
(b) any jurisdiction exercised by him in respect of and on behalf of His Majesty as visitor of any college or other charitable foundation;
(c) any jurisdiction exercised by him with respect to solicitors;

but save as aforesaid, the Lord Chancellor shall not exercise any executive functions, and the Lord Chancellor shall cease to be Keeper of the Great Seal, and the custody thereof and such executive functions as aforesaid shall be transferred to the Lord Lieutenant.

Mr. D. WILSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) to leave out paragraph (a).
When we establish these two courts, one in Northern Ireland and the other in Southern Ireland it will be very expensive and injudicious that the solicitors and others connected with the estates of lunatics in Northern Ireland should have to come to Dublin to get some small matter arranged in regard to these estates. It is proposed to leave this Clause out, and to allow the jurisdiction over the estates of lunatics and others to be exercised by the judges of Northern and Southern Ireland respectively.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1, b) leave out the word "him" ["jurisdiction exercised by him"], and insert instead thereof the words "the Lord Chancellor."

Leave out paragraph (c).

In Sub-section (1) after the word "Seal" [Keeper of the Great Seal"], insert the words "of Ireland."—[Mr. D. Wilson.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 (Provisions as to Master of the Rolls), and 44 (Transitory Provisions) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 45.—(Provisions as to Judicature after Irish Union.)

(1) All matters relating to the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland, the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland (including the registration of deeds and title to land), and the High Court of Appeal for Ireland shall be reserved matters until the date of Irish Union, but the constituent Acts, or any Act of the Parliament of Ireland, may provide for the amalgamation of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland and the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland and the abolition or merger in the Court so constituted of the High Court of Appeal for Ireland, and may provide, as respects judges appointed after the date of Irish Union, for such judges being appointed by the Lord Lieutenant and the substitution of an address from both Houses or the House of the Parliament of Ireland for an address from both Houses of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the provisions relating to the removal of judges, and for the salaries and pensions of such judges being charged on and paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund instead of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

(2) The provisions of this Act as to existing judges and existing pensions shall, after the date of Irish Union, with the necessary modifications, extend to the judges who at that date are judges of any of the said Courts, and to any pensions which at that date are payable to any persons on account of service as such judges.

Mr. D. WILSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "and title to land" ["including the registration of deeds and title to land"]
Although it is absolutely essential that the registration of deeds should be a reserved matter, it is not necessary in the case of the title to land. The registration of deeds has been, of course, a central matter from the very beginning, and the memorials of land, both in Northern and Southern Ireland, are bound together in books. People searching for titles have to go to the Central Registry Office. It would be absolutely impossible to disintegrate these books and separate the memorials which have been entered from time to time in respect to operations dealing with land, both in Northern and Southern Ireland. This, therefore, is a reserved matter until the date of Irish Union. But there is another system of registration which began with the Land Acts in 1891. That was the registration of the titles to land bought under the Land Purchase Acts. There is, in this connection, a local registry of title in each county, and the registrar in each county sends to Dublin to the Central Registry copies of all titles to land registered with him. There is no difficulty whatever in disintegrating these.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Just one word to draw attention to this further example of the Government finding out how impracticable a Bill this is as drafted; particularly in regard to chopping off a corner of Ireland to be administered and legislated apart from the rest of Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (1), insert the new Sub-section—
(2) The reservation of matters relating to such Supreme Courts as aforesaid shall not extend to the regulation of the profession of solicitors.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.0 P.M.

Captain CRAIG: The Committee will observe from the reading of the first two lines of this Clause how far-reaching it is, dealing as it does with all matters relating to the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland, the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland and so on. It is quite easy to conceive, in fact it is a point upon which there is a very great deal of difference of opinion, with the probability of litigation, as to what is included in the term "all matters" relating to the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland, and the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland. The Government has met us in the two Amendments which we have just passed. But I would like to point out there are still a great many matters which affect the easy working of the law in both Northern and Southern Ireland. It is at least doubtful whether they will come within this Sub-section or not. There is a matter of importance. There is a matter of improvement which either the Northern judiciary or the Southern judiciary would wish to make in their legal system, and which has been mentioned on several occasions—the setting up of a Court of Criminal Appeal. That surely is a matter which, if either court felt very strongly upon, it should be allowed to deal with and set up such a court. I maintain that under this Section they are absolutely precluded from doing so, and that shows the necessity of narrowing this Clause down to much smaller limits. Take the Civil Bill Courts jurisdiction; everybody knows that only sums up to a certain amount can be dealt with in the Civil Bill Courts, together with certain other matters. It seems wrong that the courts should be bound down in this way, seeing that it might be found very desirable to allow one Court to deal with a different kind of case.

Mr. D. WILSON: That has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

Captain CRAIG: There are other matters I should like to touch on. There is the question of holding Assizes. If it were found necessary to increase the
number of assises in one year it could not be done because this Section precludes such a change. Then there is the regulation affecting trial by judge with a jury. It is not possible for the judiciary to make their own rules on that point, however much public convenience might demand a change. There is the regulation affecting Probate Registry in the North of Ireland. That comes under the ban of this Clause. The Land Commission Offices which we want to see established in the North of Ireland cannot be set up. We have a principal Bankruptcy Office in Belfast, but I am not sure that the area over which it has jurisdiction is as great as the area controlled by the Northern Parliament, and under this Section the judiciary will not be allowed to extend the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. There is the question of Admiralty jurisdiction which I understand is possessed by County Courts, but under this Section, so far as I can see, it will be impossible for the judiciary to set up any Admiralty jurisdiction. There is a general regulation affecting the administration of summary jurisdiction in County Courts, but we cannot deal with any of these matters, and the various points I have mentioned show how very important matters cannot be dealt with either by the Northern judiciary or by the Northern Parliament. What I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to do would be to give us a promise that between now and the report stage he will look into this Clause more closely, and if he finds that the case I have made is a true one, and that neither the Northern Parliament nor the Northern judiciary will be able to touch these matters, he will so amend the Bill as to give both the judiciary and the Parliament those powers of control without which they would be handicapped, in the one case in the matter of the administration of justice and in the other case in the promotion of legislation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have been delighted to hear the reasonable speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig), because it indicates that he wishes to increase the powers of the Southern Parliament; obviously, he cannot increase the power of one Parliament without increasing that of the other. This is really the first touch of reality we have had in this Debate. What I want to know is this, and I trust I may get a clear answer.
The hon. and gallant Member said, "The Government have met us." To whom does he thus refer? I gather that he was referring to what had been conceded in the matter of land titles and the regulation of the profession of solicitors, but I have heard no Debate in this House in which these concessions were demanded, and I want to know by whom they were demanded and when the bargain was struck. The Amendments appear to me to suggest that there is log-rolling going on behind the scenes with reference to this Bill, and that the Unionist Members have been "met" on matters as to which I think we are entitled to have more information. I particularly seize on this point because it is obvious from the course of the Bill that there has been continual bargaining and haggling behind the scenes.

Mr. LONG: There has been absolutely nothing of the kind.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am delighted to hear it, but still I want an explanation as to what was meant by the hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim, when he said, "On these points we have been met." I am rather driven to press this matter, because of the extraordinary Amendment which appears later on with regard to the Oath of Allegiance being taken by Catholics. We ought to have some explanation, showing exactly where we stand, and why and how the authority of this House is being undermined.

Mr. D. WILSON: With reference to the remark of the last speaker, the Amendments with regard to land titles and the solicitor's profession were moved by myself, and I presume that the hon. Member for Antrim, in using the phrase he did, meant that the desire was to get as much jurisdiction as possible for these courts in the North of Ireland. I think, in fact, the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim has shown himself unduly nervous on the various sub-points he has mentioned, but I will undertake to look into them all, and if any matter can be introduced to expedite the administration of justice, either in the Southern or the Northern Parliamentary area, we will do what we can to secure it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to know why these Amendments with regard to land titles and the
regulation of the solicitor's profession were not thought of when the Bill was drafted, and why should it now be necessary to alter the Bill.

Mr. D. WILSON: It was my fault, but these were the last two Amendments that were accepted by the Committee. I have given my reasons for them, and am willing to repeat them if I have failed to convey them.

Clause 46 (County Court Judges) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 47.—(Appeals from the High Court of Appeal for Ireland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: I should like to have some explanation of this Clause. It provides a right of appeal from the High Court of Appeal for Ireland to the House of Lords, and paragraph (c) provides for such appeal in any case where a decision of the High Court of Appeal for Ireland involves a decision of any question as to the validity of any law made by or having the effect of an Act of Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, and the decision is not otherwise subject to appeal. It will be seen that Clause 49 gives ministerial power to refer the question of the validity of any Act of either of the Irish Parliaments, and in the final line of Sub-section (1) of that Clause it states that the question shall be decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Supposing, however, that the question of the power of one of the Parliaments to make a law is referred to the Privy Council, and is decided by them, that the Bill becomes law and that a law suit arises involving the question of the validity of the Bill, and an appeal goes forward to the House of Lords. I believe I am right in saying that the House of Lords is not bound by a decision of the Privy Council, although it would naturally regard it with respect. What will happen in such a case? If the House of Lords differed from the Privy Council, there would be an unfortunate conflict. It is impossible to legislate so as to provide that the House of Lords should be bound by the Prive Council. Under these circumstances, may not this provision with reference to the Privy
Council clearly act only as a possible way of misleading people as to what their true rights are? Two ways out of the difficulty occur to me. One obvious way would be to leave out any Council, on the ground that it would be more dangerous than useful, in view of the possibility of the decision being reversed by the House of Lords. The other way would be to make the right of appeal on the question of the validity of a law, not to the House of Lords, but to the Privy Council, in which case there would be no possibility of conflict.

Mr. D. WILSON: Paragraph (c) of Clause 47 provides that in all actions at law an ordinary appeal from the High Court of Appeal for Ireland shall lie with the House of Lords. Clause 49, to which the hon. Member referred, gives to the Government in accordance with the ordinary constitutional practice of the country the right to apply to the Privy Council as to the validity either of the law or of the proposal from the law, which may or may not invalidate the provisions of this Act, or may not be ultra vires.
According to the Constitution, His Majesty on the advice of his Ministers has always the right to apply to the Privy Council as to the validity of such a law, and in such a case it was thought proper to preserve that right in the event of such a matter being referred to the Privy Council, their decision having been given. If the identical point were subsequently to arise in an action the House of Lords in such action would be bound by the decision of the Privy Council and there would not be the difference between the two jurisdictions which my hon. Friend fears.

Clauses 48 (Appeals where Validity of Irish Law Questioned), 49 (Special Provision for Decision of Constitutional Questions), and 50 (Appeals from Decisions of Joint Exchequer Board) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

IRELAND.

MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
The object of the Motion which I have the honour to move is to draw attention to the failure of the Government to maintain law and order in Ireland, with special reference to Londonderry and Dublin.

Dr. MURRAY: Where is the Government?

Colonel ASHLEY: Personally, I have never spoken with a sense of greater responsibility than I do this evening, and I can conceive that it has very seldom fallen to the lot of any hon. Member of this House.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it right that this Debate should go on without a representative of the Government on the Front Bench?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That is hardly a point of Order. We always allow time for the Government to come in.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the matter. I would have done so myself in two or three minutes, but I saw the representatives of the Government in another place, attending to the needs of the inner man, and I know that they will be here very shortly. I do not think any hon. Member of this House has ever risen—certainly I never have—under circumstances of graver import and greater peril to this country, to Ireland, and, indeed, to the Empire, than at the present moment. I will, first of all, refer specifically and definitely to the circumstances of Londonderry and Dublin, and I will then proceed, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to make some general observations on the position as a whole. If my information is correct, the deplorable and terrible situation in Londonderry arose mainly from the attempt of the Sinn Feiners to oust the loyalists from taking part in the work at the shipbuilding yard in that town. I am not making a great point of that, because it is a powder magazine which any spark
might set alight, and there are faults on both sides. But the primary cause of this deplorable outbreak is, undoubtedly, the determined attempt to oust from the industrial mainstay of that town all those who are loyalists and wish to maintain the connection with this country. Disturbances arose, first of all, on Tuesday of last week—seven days ago—when there were considerable disturbances in the town. There were shootings, but, happily, there were no serious casualties of any sort. Matters simmered on for some days, and on Friday and Saturday a most deplorable outbreak took place, in which five were killed and very many injured. I may say that, if five are acknowledged to have been killed, probably three or four times that number were really killed, because both sides make it a point of honour not to allow it to be known how many are killed and injured. Buildings belonging to loyalists were burnt, the casualties were too numerous for the ambulances to cope with, looting by the drunken mob took place on an extensive scale, and, when the fire engine came out, the Sinn Feiners took possession of it, took it to their own quarter, and there destroyed it. It is a sufficiently serious situation, even in these days, to have arrested some sort of serious attention from His Majesty's Government; but, at any rate as far as I can see from the published accounts, nothing was done. Nothing of any import was done. A few hundred soldiers marched up and down the streets and went back to barracks. I do not blame the police. They are far too few in numbers to be able to cope with such a dangerous situation. This morning there was a renewed riot, three more were killed and many more were injured. I would draw attention to a most foul crime which I could not believe any inhabitants of the United Kingdom could be guilty of. It is more worthy of darkest Africa or some savage Asiatic potentate. Let me read the paragraph:
Most tragic of all yesterday's (Monday's) events was the shooting of a young man named Howard McKay, son of the governor of apprentice boys of Derry. Mr. McKay, who was about 25 years of age, and served in France with the North Irish Horse during the War, had been on holiday. He was not in uniform. He was not a resident. He only arrived in the city yesterday (Sunday) afternoon. He was on his way to his father's residence outside the city, but on the outskirts of the town he was seized by armed Sinn Feiners, bound with ropes,
and then shot dead. The body lay on the roadside for several hours.
What happened to James Dobbin, an inhabitant of the town? He was severely wounded and thrown into the river and is now lying in hospital with the lower portion of his body completely paralysed. He was rescued from the river owing to the gallant exertions of the police in the face of a furious mob. Where is the Government of this country? Where is the Government of Ireland? It is seven days since these disastrous happenings began. On Friday and Saturday it amounted to mob law. The city authorities were not in command, the troops were not in command, the police were not in command. No one was in command except a drunken mob. Have we in Ireland a Government capable of enforcing the law, that for seven days one of the big cities of the North of Ireland should be handed over to mob law in this way—I do not care whether Unionists or Sinn Feiners? I ask what possible justification can there be for allowing these things to go on and not coming, if necessary, to the House of Commons to ask for further powers or for fresh troops, which would willingly and gladly be given, in order to restore some semblance of law and order to that unhappy district?
Let me turn for a moment to another place to which our special attention is drawn to-night. Dublin is going to be, under this fatuous Bill which we have been discussing, the chief town of the Southern Parliament which is to sit there to administer the law, to keep order and to rule three-quarters or four-fifths of Ireland. I must ask for the patience of the House while I read out some 25 or 30 occurrences which have happened in that unhappy place during the last twelve months. For several months past disregard of the law and the taking of human life have been on the increase and apparently the Government are able to do nothing whatever to maintain the sanctity of life and the inviolability of property in that city. Go back to 12th March last year—
Daring raid for arms in Richmond Road, Dublin, Mr. Pearson shot dead in resisting raid. 20th March, aerodrome raided, sentries gagged and bound. Everything stolen. On 6th June of last year, outrage in Dublin; four policemen and one woman shot.
What would the House say if four policemen and a woman were shot one, afternoon in this country? Would there not be a call at once for law and order?
31st July, last year, Detective Sergeant Smith shot and died in hospital. 20th October, Constable Downing brutally shot by three armed men in High Street, Dublin. 11th November, outrage in Dublin, Detective Inspector Wharton shot dead in St. Stephen's Green
—as it might be in Trafalgar Square—in the middle of London.
Daring robbery in Dublin on 20th November; £300 stolen. Detective Sergeant Barton murdered in College Street, Dublin, on 1st December.
It is always the police who are murdered.
1st December, daring raid on Dublin bread van driver by three armed men. 20th December, Lord French attacked and Sergeant Holly wounded.
The only redeeming feature of this record of crime is that Michael Savage, one of the assassins, was shot dead by the escort.
27th December, Constable Redmond assaulted and severely injured. 22nd January, Mr. Redmond, Second Assistant Commissioner of Police, shot dead in Harcourt Street. 23rd January, money stolen from a post office. 13th February, military lorry held up in the streets of Dublin and searched by armed men.
That is a dignified sort of position for the British Government to be in—to have their armed soldiers help up in the streets of Dublin and searched.
16th February, armed men hold up and bomb train. 20th February, Constable Walsh shot dead. 1st March, Mr. Curtin shot dead. 25th March, corporation money stolen. 25th March, a young man shot dead in South William Street, Dublin, afterwards found to be a soldier on leave. 26th March, horrible murder of Mr. Alan Bell, resident magistrate, who was dragged out of a tramcar as he was going to his office and shot dead and his body left lying in the gutter.
No one has ever been arrested for that horrible crime.
On 5th April an unknown man found shot in Howth, afterwards found to be a corporal in the King's Own Regiment. 13th April, Leixlip Police Barracks burnt down. Constable Kells shot on 15th April, and Constable Dalton shot on 21st April. 26th April, Mr. Behan wounded.
To end the list, we have an account of an attempt made this morning to murder the Assistant Commissioner of the Royal Irish Constabulary with revolver shots and bombs while going to his office. He was severely wounded, as also was one of his escort. This is
not an exhaustive list. I could make a list which would detain the House for the best part of an hour, but here we have taken by chance 17 murder cases, and how many arrests? Not one. Murder, robbery and arson taking place daily in Dublin and not a single arrest. The only redeeming feature was that one of the assailants of Lord French was shot down when trying to escape. The victory undoubtedly rests in these cases with the assassins and not with the Government. I would ask the Attorney-General what are they going to do to improve the condition of affairs in Dublin? It is not improving. It is undoubtedly getting worse. Who rules in Derry now? The only possible answer is the mob. Who rule in Dublin? Two bodies, the Sinn Feiners, who are Republicans, and the Transport Workers' Union who are supporters of international "Soviets." The English Government does not rule in Dublin. No man's life is safe. Hon. Members who come from Ireland will support me in that statement. In whose hands is the Post Office? It is nominally in the hands of the Postmaster-General, but it is a well-known fact that 80 to 90 per cent. of the employés in the Post Office in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland are professed Sinn Feiners. I do not suppose that if the Attorney-General wanted to communicate with the Chief Secretary in Dublin that he would ever dream of sending his letter through the post. If it went through the post it would either not arrive or it would be opened and the contents would be known. It is a well-known fact that no business firm of repute ever dreams of despatching anything of a confidential character through the post. If you want to communicate with Dublin you have to send a special messenger or arrange for the communication to go through the military. I will tell the House of an experience of my own. I serve on a committee which is raising funds to get some of these wretched ex-service men out of Ireland, where their lives and property are not safe. We endeavoured through the post to get into communication with a clergyman in a local parish. We wrote two letters to him and we sent a telegram, but we got no answer. They were all held up, and the only way in which we could communicate with the clergyman was by sending a letter through the War Office and the military authorities. I
shall be surprised if the House is satisfied to allow things to continue in that state.
Take the Dublin Metropolitan Police. They are carrying on, but they are not functioning. I doubt if the Government can rely upon them to arrest anybody, because they are afraid and because they do not believe the Government is supporting them. That is the real reason. The Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary are in Ireland. Can they move about? Can they attend functions and fetêes? No, they are prisoners in their own houses, just as much prisoners as if they were convicted and under penal servitude. They cannot go out except with armoured cars and with armed lorries escorting them. What of the officials? It is well known that they are prisoners in the Castle and that they take their exercise inside the Castle. They cannot go out. If they do go out they are murdered like Mr. Bell or shot at like the gentleman who was shot at this morning. There is, however, one institution which functions very well, namely, the Republican post in Dublin. They send letters through their own post office. What has the Government to say to that? Are they going to sit down and allow people in these islands to establish a post office of their own, with their own postmark and their own stamp? It is incredible that any Government can stand by and allow such things to go on. Take another instance. What have the Government done about the refusals of the dockers to land cargo in Ireland? As far as I can see, they have done nothing. They have hesitated. They have employed a certain number of soldiers to unload munitions, but they have taken no decided line. They have not said to these dockers, "Either you carry out your ordinary work and enable the railways as common carriers to perform the duties which they are pledged to perform or you must leave our service." So far as I know nothing has been done, and they have accepted the position in the hope that some day the dockers may be graciously pleased to unload the munitions.
Unless the Government take decided action they cannot expect anyone to support them in Ireland. Unless they make up their mind that they will carry operations through they will get no support. Take the strike on the railways. I hope that when the representative of the Government answers he will be able to tell
us what is the Government's policy in regard to the railway strike in Ireland, or the threats of a strike. I see in the newspapers—it may be untrue, and, therefore, I do not want to misrepresent the Government—that if the railwaymen refuse to carry the troops, police and munitions, the Government are going to shut down the railways in Ireland.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member obtained leave to move the Adjournment in order to "discuss matters connected with the recent occurrences in Londonderry and Dublin." A railway strike all over Ireland does not come within that description.

Colonel ASHLEY: At Broadstone Station, in Dublin, they are striking against carrying troops and police, and I want to know whether the Government are going to allow a section of the workmen in Dublin at Broadstone Station to prevent the troops and police from using that station and that terminus, or whether they are going to work the railways themselves. Last year we had a railway strike in this country and the Government did splendid work. They organised the railways and ran them for the benefit of the community, and I submit that the same policy should be followed at Broadstone Station in Dublin, and that the Government, instead of closing up that station, should say, "No. Our duty as a Government is to maintain the communications open, and we will see, by volunteer and other means, that the troops are carried from that station; we will not allow any other body to usurp the functions which ought to rest in the Executive Government, and we will see that anybody who wishes to travel shall have a chance of doing so." The situation in Dublin is not the ordinary situation with which we were faced years ago. It is complicated by the fact that the Transport Workers' Union, who have their headquarters there, and who dominate the labour in that city, indeed who control, I think, a very large percentage of the municipal representation of the city, are allies to the industrial workers of the world. Therefore, it is not only the local manifestation in Dublin with which you have to deal, but you have to provide for a foreign organisation which is using the transport workers of Dublin and the unrest there in order
to create disturbances in this country and thereby to hit this country.
The Chief Secretary, when he went over to Dublin quite recently, talked a great deal about conciliation. It is no use talking conciliation with the Sinn Feiners and the assassins. When a wounded tiger is attacking you it is no use offering him bread and milk, you have to shoot him with a rifle and shoot him very quickly, and it is just the same with these assassins and these people who will have nothing to do with the British Government. I am not advocating that they should all be shot, but I do say that firmness is the only thing that will convince them that we right and they are wrong, all this conciliation talk and the talk about the hands of friendship might do very well if you were dealing with Englishmen or other reasonable people, but it only enables these Irishmen to laugh at you. They think no more of you for it, but they think the less and you do not advance your cause by one single inch. The Government has sent troops to Dublin and to Londonderry and they have sent marines to the coastguard stations. But they have sent these troops and marines with their hands tied behind their backs. It is no use having troops or marines unless they have power to act. Troops can do very little. There was great criticism in this House some weeks ago because a party of British soldiers on sentry duty were overpowered by a sudden attack of Sinn Feiners in some office in a street in Dublin. I submit that unless you give these British troops or the officers in charge of them some further power to take the initiative you do not give them any chance when they are attacked by the Sinn Feiners. Take the position of the sentry. He is walking up and down, and half-a-dozen civilians come up to him and surround him. He may shoot them, but if he does it is murder. Therefore these surprise attacks on the military are inevitable. If you want to put the police and military on some footing to deal with these men you must give them some power of saying to these people who approach them, "Unless you halt and keep a certain distance we will shoot." But to go on as at present allowing troops to go out without being allowed to do that is simply courting disaster, as the Sinn Feiners know, no matter how many troops you sent.
Take another instance in which I think the Government have been behaving in a
most extraordinary way. The House will recollect that last autumn there was a declaration made that the prisoners in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, would not be released if they went on hunger strike. The Government said that if they went on hunger strike they might starve if they liked. That was a perfectly definite thing. In the middle of April Sir Neville Mac-ready, starting a new regime, went over, and we had a wholesale gaol delivery of hunger strikers. Sixty-six men were let out, from one-third to one-half of these being men who had been convicted of offences. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, if my recollection serves me, first said they were not going to let out anybody who had been convicted. Then next day, having had further information from Dublin, he said that they had let them out. At any rate, the impression left on our mind was that the Government did not intend to let out those who had been convicted of offences, but intended only to let out those who had been arrested on suspicion, and that if a man had been convicted he would be kept in prison even if he went on hunger strike. Since then sixteen persons on hunger strike who were convicted by court martial under the Defence of the Realm Regulations have been released. How can you expect to govern a country, especially a country like Ireland, if you release anybody who is sent to prison who chooses to go on hunger strike, even though he has been convicted, by a properly constituted tribunal, of some offence against the laws of this country? Everybody sees that if he goes on hunger strike for three or four days he can stave off all punishment.
Now as regards ex-service men. Many of these men have been treated very badly because they are ex-service men. These men who went at the call of England to fight for her are receiving no special protection, and their lives are made a hell to them. Is that a right way for this great country to requite the services of these men who went to fight our battles when we were in grave danger? When the Armistice was signed I was proud to be an Englishman. This country was at the pinnacle of its power. It was respected by every country in the world. We had carried the burden of this great war on our shoulders and had come out victorious. Now, during the last twelve months, we hale been neglecting Ireland. We have
been neglecting to take strong measures. We have slipped down from that pinnacle, and all the nations of the world are pointing the finger of scorn at Great Britain, because she is not able to rule and maintain her authority in a small island which is within sixty miles of her shore and contains fewer than four million inhabitants. They say, "How can we respect a country that claims to rule over to big a portion of the globe if in either Derry or Dublin they allow mob rule in one case and republican rule in another, and take no steps to stop it?" It would not be in order to go into the question of the Home Rule Bill, or whether it is good for the cause of law and order in Dublin or Derry, but my firm conviction is that, unless the Government take immediate steps to strengthen the powers which the Irish Government possess of arrest, and imposing penalites for carrying arms, and indeed go as far as martial law, we shall get no safety for personal property in Ireland. Martial law is not popular in this country, and rightly so. But the security of a country and the security of property and individual liberty are more precious than anything, and personally I would not hesitate for a moment to proclaim martial law in Ireland, because I am strongly of opinion that that is the only way to deal with the grave and menacing situation with which we are confronted.

Major O'NEILL: In rising to second this Motion I do not in any way wish to talk of making an attack on the Government, because I realise, as I am sure everybody in this House realises, that the Government to-day in Ireland are faced with a situation, the difficulty of which it would be impossible to exaggerate. Indeed, I doubt whether the Government of any country has ever been faced with a more supremely complex and difficult problem than that which the present Government has to face in Ireland. Consequently, in any remarks which I may make I am sure that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) will appreciate the fact that I do realise that he is up against an extraordinarily difficult situation. When we come to consider the methods which have been adopted for dealing with it, there are, I think, many causes for dissatisfaction, at any rate, on the part of those who live in Ireland. Let me take the terrible case of the city
of Derry. As has been said, there were indications that this kind of thing was likely to arise. Weeks, if not months ago, the Government must have known that that city, perhaps above all others in Ireland, is charged with an atmosphere of electricity. Its population is composed practically half Sinn Fein on the one hand and half Loyalists and Unionists on the other, and the Government must have known that if there was one place in the country where party fights and sectarian differences were likely to come to the point of conflict it was in that city. In addition to that, there have recently been provocative incidents in the city. For the first time for many years the local government of Derry is in different hands from those which controlled it for many years; in fact, the present mayor of the city is a Sinn Feiner. Only a short time ago the Corporation of Derry adopted a resolution to erase from the Roll of Freemen the name of the present Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, not only because he was Lord-Lieutenant, but because in Lord French there is represented one of the greatest soldiers of the Empire, and a man who, in those terribly anxious days when our small Army was standing against fearful odds, offered successful resistance, and was the embodiment of the spirit of our country. That man is selected in a city where half the population are strong adherents of everything for which the Empire stands, and he is insulted by being erased from the Roll of Freemen of the city.
9.0 P.M.
That is the kind of thing which leads to provocation. Yet in face of these warnings the Government did not take adequate measures to prevent an outbreak in the city. This afternoon the Leader of the House told me that the troops were considered by the military authorities to be sufficient to deal with any disorder. Surely the very fact that disorder has taken place during the last few days, that men have been shot down in every quarter of the city, and that the city has been entirely under the control of armed civilians, is proof that the military forces were not sufficient? Something has been said about martial law. Martial law is a term which is often misunderstood and misrepresented by the ordinary civilian. I do not know what martial law really means in a case of this sort, but I have always understood it to
mean, broadly, that you place the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order, not under the ordinary control of civilians, but under the control of a military force. I would suggest to the Leader of the House that, after the recent events in Derry, the time has come when something in the nature of military control should be established, at least in that city, so that law-abiding people—they belong to all parties, for I have no doubt that there are Sinn Feiners and Nationalists in Derry who would welcome any action on the part of the Government which would put the city in a state reasonably fit for law-abiding people—may have the protection which is their right. If martial law be a remedy, or whatever may be the remedy, I would urge the Government to adopt it without further delay.
Arising out of this, there is a point to which I would refer, and that is the increasing frequency, during the last few weeks and months, of the incursions of Sinn Fein into the North-East of Ulster. These riots in Derry began in that way. There have been attacks on workmen returning from the shipyards. Police barracks in the very heart of North-East Ulster have been burnt and destroyed. An attack was made on the town of Down-patrick not long ago, and a Protestant clergyman who most gallantly went to try to deal with the raiders was shot and seriously wounded. That kind of thing creates an atmosphere of terrible provocation to those who constitute the great majority of the population in that area. There is a great incentive to the loyal majority to adopt measures of retaliation. I am glad to say that up to the present the great majority of the people of North-East Ulster, who are Unionists in politics, have adopted a most laudable restraint. If any words of mine can reach them, I most earnestly trust that above all else they will maintain that restraint, for I would be the last to look with satisfaction upon the prospect of anything like civil war between the different religions in the North of Ireland; on the contrary, I should look upon it as one of the most appalling tragedies that could possibly occur in Ireland now. On the other hand, if the Government cannot produce sufficient troops, which seems almost incredible, I suggest to them that they should adopt some means of organising in order to help
them, the majority of the loyal population in those parts of the country. I am perfectly certain, if the Government were to issue an appeal for help, if they really have reached such a terrible state that they, as representing the British Empire, have not got the forces with which to maintain order, there would be a very fine response. But if they do that, they must do it, recognising fully the position of the people who may respond, and by putting them in such a position that if they do incur great risks in helping the Government, and if they should lose their lives, their wives and families and dependants will be properly provided for, and if they are injured, that they should receive proper pensions. I can only suggest such a thing as a last resort, because, after all, it is not the duty of the loyalists in the North-East of Ulster to protect their province. It is the duty of the Government to protect the province of Ulster, or any other part of the United Kingdom, and to see that within its boundaries a proper state of law and order is maintained. If the Government do not take reasonable steps, there is, and believe me I am speaking no thoughtless words, very grave danger of a real conflict between armed mobs of the opposing factions. As I said just now, I should look upon nothing as a more terrible calamity for Ireland than anything of that sort. You have only got to look back at the terrible days of the Rebellion of 1798 in Ireland, to realise what an appalling state of affairs would result if anything like a conflict between half-disciplined mobs took place anywhere in that country.
My hon. and gallant Friend who moved has referred in detail to various episodes which have taken place recently in Dublin, culminating in the attack to-day upon Mr. Roberts, the Assistant Commissioner of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I am not going into those incidents in detail, but what strikes the average man about them is that all those attacks upon British forces in Ireland, call it garrison or whatever you like, the representatives of British connection in Ireland, are almost without exception successful. That is not a very edifying position for the great British Empire to have to face in any parts of its Dominions, and more particularly, perhaps, in Ireland, where, through long years of experience, it might be expected
to know what would take place. When you get such things as the holding up of a lorry full of soldiers by armed men, and compelling them to get out of the lorry and to line up against the wall to be jeered at by the on looking population, and to be deprived of their arms, and, after being searched, to be allowed to continue with the lorry, and go away, those are not the sort of incidents that increase the respect of any section of people in Ireland for the way Great Britain is able to manage its armed forces. Only a few weeks ago we had an equally pitiful spectacle, from the military point of view, of an armed guard of soldiers, in the middle of the City of Dublin, overpowered by civilians who carried revolvers, and who succeeded in defeating the guard and getting away with all their arms and ammunition, including, I believe, a Lewis gun. This, of course, is a military matter for which the Secretary for War is rightly responsible. I hope he does realise that this House, or, at any rate, many Members of it, do regard the extraordinary way in which, on many occasions, soldiers have been defeated by civilians in Ireland as a most undesirable state of affairs, and one deserving of the most searching and earnest consideration and inquiry and action, disciplinary action, on the part of the military authorities.
I was going to say, what have the Government done? My hon. and gallant Friend asked what have they done, and he showed that, in his opinion, they had done very little. That is certainly my opinion as well, and I am perfectly convinced it is the opinion of the vast majority of people in Ireland, whether they be loyalists or whether they be people representative of Sinn Fein. A few months ago, I think in March, Sir Nevil Macready was sent to Ireland with apparently rather exceptional powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, and also, apparently, as head of the police Forces in Ireland. About the same time, I forget whether it was earlier or later, a new Chief Secretary was appointed in the shape of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir H. Greenwood), who now holds that office. People in Ireland, as the result of the declarations of the Government, expected that with this change in administration and in military command there would really be some definite tangible
difference with regard to the way things were going on in that country. I know perfectly well you cannot expect miracles in a moment. General Macready, no doubt, is presumably taking measures which he hopes will result in better co-operation and co-ordination between military and police forces in Ireland, and I am not going to criticise unduly the fact that they are not showing as yet the result most people had hoped for. But I do think we are having to wait a rather long time before we get some result from the appointment of these new executive officers in Ireland. We Members who represent Irish constituencies constantly get communications from our friends in various parts of Ireland, and I can assure the Leader of the House that, almost without exception, those letters express terrible concern at the way in which, so far as the ordinary man can see, things are still going from bad to worse, and with really no result whatever from the changes to which I have referred. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney-General for Ireland or whoever replies on behalf of the Government—I will not be presumptuous or stupid enough to ask them to tell the House in detail the kind of measures which General Macready is taking—to give us some account of what has been done and some idea that in the near future these measures will be effective. Secrecy, no doubt, is a most important feature in military operations; that was proved to demonstration in the late War. But I hope he will be able to hold out to the people, to the vast majority of the people as I believe, a hope of a better state of affairs, and that in the immediate future these measures will really have some definite result and will produce something better than what we have had so far.
We read every day in the newspaper that military forces are being poured into Ireland; we hear of large reinforcements every day and we cannot help asking ourselves what these reinforcements of troops are doing, where they are, and why are not the results visible from their operation. During the last few days we have been discussing the Home Rule Bill. We are told that that Bill is to bring peace to Ireland. I firmly hope it may, but it is no good shouting peace when there is no peace. We are told that this Bill is
going to bring union to Ireland, but it is no good talking about union where there is no union. I hope there will be union some day, but it does not exist now. I am not going to discuss such matters as those which have recently happened in Derry. But, certainly, they are not the sort of thing that is likely to lead to a rapid union between the people of Ireland and this country. Take this instance of a young ex-soldier. He was not shot in a street riot; he was taken away and bound and deliberately murdered by Sinn Feiners. His father was well known in the district as a prominent Unionist, but this boy had been away at the War and had taken no part in that. He did not care about any question of politics; he was home on leave. That sort of thing is not going to lead to the union of the North and South of Ireland, whether by means of a Home Rule Bill or through any other source, and for that reason, if for no other, if I may touch upon the general question for a moment, I am sure the Government realises it, as I most earnestly submit, that it is in the general interest of the country, vitally important that they should adopt the necessary measures to bring about a better state of things. It seems to me that there are only two alternatives. It raises a most serious issue. Either the Government should abrogate the authority of government in Ireland and recognise, as the Sinn Feiners are always reminding them, that they are in fact in a state of war; or they must take measures which will be very drastic, and these measures must be maintained until such time as the Irish people have been reduced to a state of affairs in which they will be fit to receive whatever new form of government may be given to them. They must take measures which, so far as they can ensure, will be adequate to produce a better state of affairs than the one which exists at the present time. As things stand at present they are a scandal to our Empire, a reproach to British ability to govern and they are reducing my poor distracted country to a state of chaos, ruin, and desolation.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: I suppose it would be impossible to bring a greater indictment against a Government than that which has been so ably put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just addressed the House. It strikes me
as having been completely justified by the facts that they have stated. They have shown that the Government of Ireland at present does not exist. There is no Imperial Government in Ireland. What government there is, is government by the Sinn Feiners. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just pointed out, there are many things in which the Sinn Feiners are in the ascendency. They have their own judges and their own courts; they carry out their own laws. The laws made in Great Britain do not exist in Ireland or, at any rate, in many parts of it. The shocks which have been caused here by the crimes which have been committed have been very great These crimes are simply monstrous. And I am going to make the bold statement that there is no country in the world at the present time which is worse governed than Ireland. What is the reason? It is mainly that the people in the South of Ireland have no confidence in the government of the country. If they had confidence they would obey the law. What has the Government done? They have deliberately introduced a Home Rule Bill which is not wanted by anyone and is not trusted by anyone. If that Bill is ever passed, if it ever becomes law, it cannot be carried out in the South of Ireland. What is the use of the Government trying to carry out their jurisdiction in that way? They are neither one thing nor the other. There is neither firmness nor conciliation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken of martial law. Martial law would be even a relief from what exists at the present time. I have listened to the account of the crimes committed in the various parts of Ireland and I have heard before the answer of the Government. In effect it is a statement that it is true that these crimes have been committed, and that there is sufficient force in that particular locality to deal with the matter.

Colonel ASHLEY: And there have been no arrests.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Day by day we hear of these cases of murder, of arson, of theft, and of all the crimes that bad-thinking people could commit. It is impossible to conceive of any nation being carried on in such a way as Ireland is at the present time. I am very glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman has introduced this Motion, but I am sorry that there is not a better attendance in
the House to listen to this grave indictment. What answer can the Attorney-General for Ireland give? I do not expect any sufficient answer. It will probably be the same as he has given in the past, namely, that there is sufficient force available, and that they are trying to do the best they can. What can all that mean? It means leaving the situation as it has been left now for too long a time. What I do hope is that the Government will now take this matter into their hands one way or the other, and if they are not able to govern Ireland either by firmness or conciliation, the sooner they put it into the hands of someone else the better.

Major Sir K. FRASER: With great diffidence I address this House on the Irish question. I have studied the subject, and given it a great deal of thought, and I wish to make one or two suggestions. I suggest that the Government should forthwith set up martial law, and, not only that, but that the country should be divided into military districts, and that the officers in charge of those districts should be Irishmen. If you cannot find Irishmen suitable for officers, you must find officers who served with the Irishmen during the Great War. The Irishmen did quite well in the War, and I say put officers, if you can, who served with the Irishmen at the front in these districts in Ireland. But this cannot go on for long; it is only for a short time. Secondly, I would venture to suggest that we should get on with the Bill for the better government of Ireland, and put Ireland under martial law until we can put this Bill on the Statute Book; and the sooner we do that the better. It is a question in Ireland of religion, and nothing else. They are loyal to the Empire. These Sinn Feiners are loyal You can lead them anywhere if you take them the right way. France has been through the same trouble, and so has England. Religion is the long and short of this question. What we have got to do is to govern Ireland while we are in charge of it, put it under martial law, and get the Home Rule Bill on the Statute Book as soon as we can. I speak as a strong Unionist.

Mr. MYERS: If in the observations I may make I do not seem to follow the line of the Mover and Seconder, I hope it will not be thought by the House that
I favour, or support, or encourage anything in the nature of violence from any point of view. If any single word I uttered inside this House or outside of it moved in that direction, I should wish for some penalty. The speech of the Mover of the Motion seemed to me to be regrettable in one or two respects. It had much too bellicose an attitude, and I do not think a solution of this problem can come in that way. One particular observation which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made has an element of truth in it, except that it does not apply the way round that he put it. He mentioned that at the time of the Armistice this country was at the pinnacle of its power, and that from that time forward a measure of retrogression from that standard has been noticeable, and he attributed it to the fact that in the eyes of the nations it was due to our inability to govern a small island close to our own shores. I do agree that the frame of mind of the world as a whole towards this country is not as healthy or as encouraging as it was at the time of the Armistice. That is not due to the fact that we are unable to govern Ireland. In my judgment, it is due to the fact that we are unable to apply to Ireland those great moral principles for which the War was said to be waged.
I think also both the Mover and the Seconder were very illogical in the attitude they took up on this question. They deplored the failure of the methods that are being employed, and then they urged the extension of those same methods. They sounded a note of despair in respect of the futility of the operations that are proceeding, and they make a demand for those operations to be intensified—an absolutely illogical position. I think the outstanding fact of the situation at the moment is the change of feeling in Ireland. During the operation of the War no such feelings prevailed in Ireland as prevails now. [HON MEMBERS: "What about the Rebellion?"] The Irishmen who came to the Colours in response to the call is an evidence of the fact that a better feeling prevailed then than prevails now. Hon. Members from this House joined the Colours and hon. Members from this House went over the seas for the purpose of conciliating Irish opinion on the side of the Allies. That feeling has
changed to such an extent that we have heard in this House from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr T. P. O'Connor) and the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) a declaration that if they went over the seas to-day to address public meetings, as they did a couple of years back, they could not now get a hearing, whereas at that time they enjoyed an enthusiastic reception.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Labour leaders in this House have said the same.

Mr. MYERS: I did not hear the interruption of the hon. Member, and I very much question if it would be worth the trouble of a reply. We cannot detach the circumstances in Ireland to-day from the circumstances that have created them. The circumstances to-day are not the product of a moment; they are the product of a deep-seated injustice, which has been intensified by modern events for which this country is very largely responsible. I agree there are deep feelings of long-standing. The Irish people cannot forget that there are one-half of the population overseas, that there are nearly half-a-million fewer homesteads in Ireland to-day than there were 50 or 60 years ago.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether the hon. Member is in order in generalising on Ireland and whether he should not deal with the Motion before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Member is making a deep investigation into the causes which have brought about the results which we have seen and are discussing.

Mr. MYERS: The Irish people cannot forget that during this last half century their population has declined by 46 per cent. at a time when the population of Great Britain has increased by 147 per cent. The Irish people cannot forget that during this last 50 or 60 years the male population in that country has diminished by nearly 2,000,000. All these are bedrock grievances under which the Irish people suffer.

Mr. PALMER: Do they excuse murder and outrage?

Mr. MYERS: Coming to the events of more recent times, we can say that modern troubles in Ireland date back to
the year 1914. Certain promises were made to Ireland at that time, a certain decision was arrived at, and during the period of the War the olive branch was held forth to the Irish people, that if they on their part would agree to take certain steps, certain pledges would be honoured and certain privileges would be given. The fact that these have not matured has intensified feeling in Ireland, and during the period of 6 years since 1914 not only have we failed to give to Ireland what we have promised them, but we have taken from Ireland all the time. From the point of view of revenue and taxation, Ireland raised in revenue in 1919 £37,000,000.

Mr. R. McNEILL: On a point of Order. Will it be open to subsequent speakers to point out the disastrous effect upon Ireland of having never been conquered by the Roman Empire?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is opening a door which others can push at, and which will widen the general scope of the Debate. I hope he will bear in mind that the House only gave leave for a discussion to-day, in order to discuss the particular events that have occurred in Londonderry and Dublin, and which are fresh in our minds. If he wants a general discussion on Irish matters, the proper time to take that is on the Irish Estimates, when an opportunity comes for a general review. To-day we are only discussing these particular events, the immediate causes which led up to them, and the possible remedies to apply.

Mr. MYERS: I was not aware that had transgressed. I believe in the desirability of endeavouring to discover causes for the troubles that prevail in Ireland, for we shall never effect a remedy until we discover the cause or causes. However, I will respect your ruling, Sir, and endeavour to keep to the point as closely as I can. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion recited a number of outrages and occurrences which had taken place in Ireland. Once more I repeat that these occurrences are the natural result of others of a similar character. I want to suggest the tremendous provocation that has been given in Ireland.

Colonel ASHLEY: What provocation did those seventeen unhappy policemen give who have been murdered?

Mr. MYERS: I led off by declaring that I hoped nothing I would say would be taken to indicate that I justified in the slightest degree anything in the nature of violence, either in Ireland or anywhere else, but what I am going to attempt to prove is that the policy of violence which has been in operation is absolutely futile here and now. In 1918 in Ireland there were 1,107 arrests, 260 districts were raided by the police and military, there w ere 81 baton and bayonet charges, and 91 men and women were deported to English gaols without trial. In the first nine months of 1918 there were 5,588 raids on private houses

Mr. BILLING: How many murders during the same period?

Mr. MYERS: Murder was unknown in Ireland at that time, and Sinn Fein, as we understand it to-day, was hardly recognised as a force in the country.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Mr. IRVING: Why cannot you let somebody speak in answer to your views?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may have an opportunity later on, and if he desires to speak he should stand up.

Mr. IRVING: I suggest that you might obtain as courteous a hearing for this side as you have for the other.

Mr. MYERS: It was stated in this House on the 30th October of last year that from May, 1916, up to that time 43 newspapers had been suppressed in Ireland, and that in the 12 months ended the 30th October last year 71 public meetings had been prohibited in Ireland.

Major MOLSON: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has been speaking a long time and has not mentioned Derry or Dublin yet. The Mover of the Motion was pulled up as soon as he departed a hair's breadth from the Motion, as regards Irish railways, yet we have not heard a single word from the hon. Member, who is now speaking, about Derry or Dublin. Is it your wish, Sir, that he is to continue?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have pointed out already to the hon. Member that the subject of our discussion to-night is limited to those disturbances which have taken place recently. I understand his argument to be that the reason for them is that certain things happened in 1916.

Mr. MYERS: I am coming up-to-date.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member would come nearer to the time we are now discussing, I think the House would be inclined to listen more patiently.

Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact, Sir, that if on three occasions you have to call an hon. Member to Order he should resume his seat? This is the third time you have done so.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I think, knows that.

Mr. MYERS: In addressing this House my experience is somewhat limited, but I have worked on the assumption that so long as one proceeded without the interference of Mr. Speaker one was within the boundary of the discussion before the House, and one can afford to ignore both interjections and interruptions of hon. Members so long as one keeps right with the Chair. Another provocative event which took place last year was that the military authorities in this country paraded tanks through the streets of Dublin on the anniversary of the 1916 rebellion. All these events which I have enumerated took place when crime, as we understand it now, did not prevail to anything like the same extent as to-day, but we have got to discover if we can what led up to those incidents which took place at that time.
I am going to touch upon a matter upon which I think I shall have the approval of hon. Members opposite. I believe the present condition of Ireland has very largely its origin in hon. Members on this side of the House not being willing and ready to stand by the position embodied in their own Act of Parliament passed in 1914, which did not receive the support of those on this side of the House that it ought to have done. From that time forward can be traced definitely but steadily things growing worse in Ireland. During that period there were labour troubles in this country; but if we had taken similar action in respect to Ireland; had they been as industrious and as willing to secure peace in Ireland as they were to secure industrial peace at home; and had they applied the same methods, the condition of Ireland to-day would not have been what it is. The question was asked in this House on the 30th of October, last year, to this effect: The Chief Secretary for
Ireland was asked if there had been any inflammatory speeches in Ireland, and he replied that "he knew of no such speech." A report in "The Times" on the 14th of July last year set forth the statement that a speech had been made in Belfast by the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), in which he said:
If any attempt is made to revive or put into force the Home Rule Act, I will at once summon the Provisional Government.
We on this side declare that the present trouble in Ireland is due to the conflict between what has been termed the Provisional Government in Ulster and that section of Ireland represented by the opposite side. We believe that the Provisional Government in Ulster and the Ulster Volunteers have been the medium through which a large number of Nationalist Volunteers were formed in other parts of Ireland. This kind of thing has been permitted to develop without action in this House, and if a thousandth part of the action which is advocated now had been taken then it would have put a stop to the Ulster Volunteers in those days. Three generations of Irish patriots have gone to their graves, and they have been promised definitely Home Rule for Ireland and that certain things would be put into operation. An attempt was made in 1914 to do certain things, and it was never supported to the extent it should have been; hence very largely the trouble to-day. There is besides all this the expression of opinion by the Irish people themselves. In December, 1918, we had a General Election, and nearly one-half of the votes recorded in Ireland were recorded for Sinn Fein representatives, and in addition to that 25 Sinn Fein Members were returned unopposed, for whom no votes were cast.
We may not like that expression of opinion and we may not agree with it, but it cannot be ignored. We have to face the facts of the situation and instead of endeavouring to throttle the free expression of opinion by the Irish people on those lines, what the Government ought to do is to endeavour to conciliate as far as possible the definite and constitutionally expressed will of the Irish people. Nothing can be done and no problems can be solved by violence, and I agree that that applies both ways. It can be said that violence has never solved any problem, but that it
always makes them. If we look at the condition of Europe to-day it is worse morally, materially, and from every point of view, than it was before the first shot was fired in 1914.
We have before us to-day problems which will take a generation to solve and which have arisen within the first four or five years of war. The more we intensify feeling in Ireland the worse the conditions there will become, and nothing short of the complete extermination of the Irish people can solve the Irish problem on the lines proposed by the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. Repression always did produce revolt and it always will. The present condition of things in Ireland is due not so much to the provocative events of the last month, but to the studied, settled and deliberate policy of repression and persecution in Ireland on the part of the Governments of this country.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I regret that my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary, owing to the short notice which it is necessary to give for a Motion of this kind, is unable to be present. He is detained on important duties in Ireland, and it therefore falls to me to say a few words in reply to the criticisms which have been levelled against the Irish Government. I recognise the fairness with which the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution have put the facts on which they rely before the House. I do not minimise the gravity of those facts or the responsibility that rests upon anyone connected with the Irish Government in connection with them. I will submit to the House reasons why the position in Ireland differs very much without reservation from the position of any other country in the world. I would first like to express for myself and on behalf of the Government, my gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Mid-Antrim (Major O'Neill), for the powerful appeal he made to the people he represents and to others with whom his words carry weight, to keep anything in the nature of sectarian strife out of this trouble. We have enough trouble in Ireland, God knows, without introducing that and I hope the appeal which the hon. and gallant Member has made will bear good fruit.
The principal indictment which has been made against the Irish Government is in regard to the condition of things
in Londonderry at the present time. Personally I have had exceptional opportunities of knowing something about Londonderry, and I think I may say that I know almost every lane and street there. I was born in that county and I have practised on that circuit for 35 years, and I may say that I have never known a time when at some period of the year there was not some very considerable disturbance in that city. If I were old enough to carry my recollection back to 1688 I think I should be able to say that there were very few intervening years during that period in which there was not a disturbance very much of the type complained of at the present time. The explanation is simple. It is a city with a great history and it has been the battle ground of contending parties for many a day. It is an old city. Everyone has some kind of rabbit hole from which to emerge to discharge a revolver, and at a moment's notice disappear again. But there is one matter with regard to the disturbance in Derry which differs altogether from the complaints which have been made in respect to the city of Dublin. They differ in this way from any of the cases of shooting men in the back. After all, there is an element of fighting there. The Dublin death-roll altogether is, as a rule, on the side of the unfortunate metropolitan police. When you examine into the circumstances of Derry you will find that some of the people who have unfortunately met their end are marked with the letter "U," while a good many are marked with the letters "S.F." The position is an entirely different one. What has been done in Derry? The General Commanding in Belfast has been directed by Sir Nevil Macready to proceed there. He has the fullest authority to requisition such troops as he considers necessary for the purpose of keeping public order. He is at present in Derry, and all the requisitions that he has made have been complied with. I have authority for saying that if he makes further requisitions those requisitions will also be complied with.

Major O'NEILL: Have the troops arrived?

Mr. HENRY: I am informed that a battalion of troops has arrived in Londonderry. There are two in Belfast. At the moment the General calls for them they will at once proceed to Derry. His view
up to the present is that he is perfectly able to deal with the situation without additional troops. May I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend—because his experience of these matters is larger than mine, my experience of fighting has not been very extensive—that it is extremely difficult indeed for soldiers, and especially soldiers recently recruited, to go into a strange city and deal with disturbances in the streets, to deal with shooting from the roofs of houses, to deal with people who come from each side of the street at the same time. The House perhaps will know that in Derry the streets are extremely steep and old and narrow. It is, I say, extremely difficult to deal with that kind of situation, for the soldiers cannot pursue a straggler as in an ordinary way he might be pursued. They have taken precautions at points where it is essential, but the peculiarity of the city is this: that there is no point at which a disturbance might not break out at any moment. Hon. Members who know the city and know the highly-spotted variety of these streets will realise the truth of what I am saying. You may have a disturbance at one side of the Foyle, and while you are dealing with that another will break out on the other side; while you are dealing with the two, a third may break out. It may be impossible to be in all these places at once. We are, however, doing everything that can possibly be thought of with tanks and armoured cars to keep order.
Let me come to the City of Dublin. As I say, the position of the City of Dublin is, to my mind, a very much graver one. I do not at all minimise the position in Derry, nor will the Irish Government relax their efforts to reduce it to a condition of peace. I hope that means may be found to adopt the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mid-Antrim to call to the assistance of the authorities not loyal men of one party, or of the other party, but loyal men of all parties. I am glad to say that recently there was a very successful attempt made to utilise the men of that description in the way of keeping order. If they could be further utilised I shall be glad to see it done, and it will be of great assistance. Let me, then, deal with the position in Dublin. There there have been a large number of most cold-blooded murders, which have shocked
even the people which call themselves Sinn Feiners. They have certainly shocked the feelings of any man who has any regard for Ireland, either Irishman or Britisher. We are all thoroughly ashamed of it. What is the position there? A man whom I had the honour and pleasure of knowing, the late Mr. Alan Bell, a great public servant, was dragged in broad daylight from a tramcar on his way to the Castle and murdered hi the street. There were 25 or 26 persons in that tramcar, all intelligent business men, some of them men in Government Departments. Yet we have been unable to get the slightest evidence to identify the 7 or 8 men who are responsible for that murder. It is easy for the Government to bring criminals to justice; if they have evidence it can be done. But it is impossible for the Government, notwithstanding the efforts they may make, unless they have the co-operation of peaceful citizens, to bring criminals to justice. We cannot make a case unless it is made for us by those who have had the opportunity of seeing the dastardly deed and of giving evidence.
As regards the bulk of the other murders, the people which are really effective for the purpose of tracing crime are the police and detectives. The Government and Government officials may be as hopeless as possible. The real instruments who trace crime and so discharge their duty are the Metropolitan police in Dublin and the detective department of the Metropolitan police. Does anyone suggest that they have been guilty of dereliction of duty? Does anyone suggest that the Royal Irish Constabulary have been guilty of dereliction of duty? They have given the lie to such assertion by the sacrifice of their lives. Is there any complaint against them? There may be a complaint against the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—in some measure that depends upon ourselves. But here are the men who are really doing the work, who are trying to elicit the information. They are marked down and shot. Notwithstanding all our efforts to try and get the information necessary in order to bring the murderers to justice, we in most cases have been absolutely unable to do so. It depends largely upon the creation of healthy public opinion in Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley spoke of
people in the South preferring the courts of the South and of Sinn Fein to other courts. I do not think my hon. Friend realised that he was speaking a little blindly. Does he suggest that anyone in the South in the possession of property, anyone who values his peace of mind, or a peaceful residence in his own house, is prepared to accept the Courts of Sinn Fein instead of the Courts constituted by His Majesty?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They are doing it!

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HENRY: Because in two or three instances money has been returned is it suggested that this preference for Sinn Fein courts exists? All I can say on that point is that those who stole knew where to find. If the Sinn Feiners have the power to put down crime, why do they not put down the crimes which are bringing disgrace upon the name of Ireland? Ireland used to be called the "Island of Saints." I may well describe that title now as obsolete. What has His Majesty's Government done to try to bring about a different state of affairs? They have sent to Ireland Sir Nevil Macready. In his selection we have certainly a man who is suitable for Ireland. He was at the head of the police in this great City of London. He discharged his duty with every ability and courage. He is experienced not merely in connection with the police but also in military matters. He has been sent to Dublin with the fullest authority to call for assistance and to take such steps as he may think desirable in the interests of peace. I can assure the House that Sir Nevil Macready, a brave and distinguished gentleman, is by no means a fire-eater. He is not anxious to apply his military experience and military power. He is perfectly willing to deal with matters reasonably, and, at the same time, to put down disorder with a strong hand where a strong hand is necessary. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Ashley) spoke of the lack of initiative given to the troops. I want to make it clear what is the present position. It has been asserted over and over again that instructions have been issued to the constabulary not to shoot, and not to shoot with effect. I can assure the House that no such instructions have been issued. The instructions that have been issued are that they
are to deal with an attacking party as they would attack enemies in the field. They are to behave in precisely the same way as they would do on the field of battle. If they have reason to suspect that a person approaching them is in possession of deadly weapons they are to call on him to put up his hands, and, failing his doing so, they are to fire upon him. It is impossible to give more explicit instructions. My hon. and gallant Friend cited the case in King's Inn, Dublin, where a sentinel on duty was taken by surprise. I think my hon. Friend has given a rather erroneous view of what occurred. I am exceedingly familiar with the place, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast has not forgotten it, because it is a portion of the King's Inn—an Inn corresponding to the Inns of Court in this city. There were stationed there, in an interior building, a number of soldiers. There was one on duty near a footpath crossing the garden to another street. From just round the corner a man came suddenly upon him, revolver in hand, and held him up. He had no opportunity of shooting or of doing anything. I am, however, certain the result of that experience will be that the forces will not be caught napping again. It was a salutary lesson, and I am sure it will have useful results.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for one moment, to ask if we are to understand that the military, if anyone approaches them in a threatening manner and they shoot, and shoot with effect, will be supported by this Government?

Mr. HENRY: Certainly, they will be supported, and it cannot be too widely known. I should now like to say a few words with reference to some other matters connected with what the Government have done in trying to bring about peace. This House has given to the Constabulary increased pay, and not increased too much, having regard to what they have to do. I have been asked by hon. Members from time to time in this House what is proposed to be done with a view to recovering compensation that has been awarded to these men's widows and children by the Courts of Law in Ireland. I know that any award that is made is but a poor compensation for the loss of a brave father or a brave husband, but, so
far as the Government can help to smooth the path of those who are left behind, we undertake to do it. We propose to bring forward for the approval of the Cabinet, a measure enabling the money that has been awarded by the various tribunals to these widows and children to be deducted from the grants that are given to the various counties, and also enabling us to get direct, at the instance of these widows and children, at the rates, so as to avoid the attempt that is being made by the County Councils in many districts to evade payment of these legal awards. During the period which may necessarily elapse before these sums can be recovered—the legal difficulties may take up some little time—we propose to see that advances shall be made to the widows and children, if not of the entire money, at least of a substantial portion of it. As I have said, it is a poor compensation, but at any rate it will show that their efforts are appreciated by this House, and by His Majesty's Government, and it will help to cheer them on in the gallant fight that they are putting up in the cause of freedom and justice.
I am aware that the shortcomings of the Irish Government are many, but I can assure the House that it is a matter not merely of deep concern to the Members of the Irish Government, but to my right hon. Friend who sits beside me, who takes a very, very keen interest in it, and who, I am sure, feels as much as any other man in the United Kingdom the difficulties of the position. We shall continue to do our best. We may not be successful, but I am assured by those responsible in Ireland that they believe that better times are in store, and that there is every promise of a speedy improvement. They say, dealing with the question of cattle driving, that there has been a marked improvement. The number of convictions for cattle driving last month was 94, and a marked decrease in the number of cattle driving cases has taken place during that time. I know, as I have said, that we have many shortcomings, and we are conscious of the nature of the indictment that has been levelled against us by my two hon. and gallant Friends; but every Member of the Irish Government is doing all he can, recognising the solemn duty that is upon him and the trust reposed in him by this House.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not wish to stand in the way of other hon. Members who may wish to address the House, but I confess, if my right hon. Friend will permit me to say so, that I listened to his speech with a little disappointment. I do not refer to the entertaining commencement, in which he conveyed the impression that a fight in Derry is looked upon in Ireland in a rather different way from that in which it is regarded by miserable Saxons in this country. Although I cannot quite accept his view that it is part of the ordinary daily life of an Irish country town, I agree with him that it is evidently a much less serious symptom of disorder than some of the events that have taken place in Dublin.
I do not think my right hon. Friend made clear to the House the real seriousness of the position in Dublin. It is the very fact that he complains of, that they cannot get evidence. It is not only that apparently anyone can go and shoot a policeman in Dublin if he so desires, but it is the fact that that crime is seen by hundreds of people—as he says, by 25 respectable persons in a tramcar—and yet the feeling of the populace is so much with the criminals and against the Government that you cannot get any evidence.

HON. MEMBERS: Terrorism!

Lord R. CECIL: That does not make it better, but worse, if it means that no one dares to give evidence for fear of being shot. Whatever it is, it makes very little difference to the seriousness of the position in Ireland, whether it is that no one dares to give evidence in support of the Government or that there is a widespread feeling against it.
It is the same thing with regard to the Sinn Fein courts in the South. My right hon. Friend says that Sinn Fein courts are conducted very fairly. I have no doubt he is quite right. I do not know anything about it, except that one hears, as many of us hear from those who come back from Ireland, accounts of these things. To me the most serious part is the extremely complete organisation which they apparently have in those courts. I saw a man to-day, who had actually been present in one of them, and he described it to me. He said there was a bench, and a priest presiding, with a barrister to advise him, a couple of merchants, a couple of farmers, and so on,
a regular petty bench, apparently as well organised as an ordinary court. There were a number of solicitors practising before it. The King's courts were practically deserted. I do not know whether all that is true, but if it is, it shows a state of things of intense seriousness. It shows a complete reversal of everything that we are accustomed to in this country, and the Sinn Fein courts are carrying out what they conceive or represent to be justice, in place of the King's courts, which are absolutely deserted, and all this with apparently no protest and no resistance on the part of the population. It may be terror, it may be sympathy, but whatever it is, the situation is intensely serious. That is the situation which I am quite certain is really causing this grave misgiving and disquiet in the Members of this House. They see a situation which they think is intensely serious. They do not know what the Government is doing to meet it. Speech after speech is made from the Treasury Bench saying, "We are doing our best," like the pianist in the American story. "We assure you we will take every step we can. We have sent Sir Nevil Macready. Everything he asks for shall be done, and we hope something better will turn up in a short time." I am sure the House is very anxious to extend the utmost patience to the Government. They recognise the great difficulty. But I should have been more gratified, not to have the plans of the Government disclosed—no one wants that—but some evidence, if the Government is in possession of it, to show that there really is a revulsion of feeling beginning in Ireland or that there is some evidence that can be given to the House to show that their policy is beginning to have some success.
There is some force in what was said by a speaker on the other side; either you must have conciliation or you must have coercion. You cannot hope for success if you try a little coercion for a bit and then a little conciliation. I do not say which is the right policy. That is a matter which only those who are in possession of official information can judge. It may be that the coercive policy is not going to succeed. We had better know that as soon as possible if that is the view of the Government. It may be that conciliation may have to take its place. We ought to know what is the policy of the Government in that respect.
The thing which is really fatal to success is locking up men, convicting them before a court-martial and then letting them out. That is a perfectly hopeless way of governing any country. To proceed with a Bill by which you are going to transfer the whole executive power to the majority in the south and the west of Ireland, and at the same time to proceed with a vehement policy of coercion; I cannot conceive how a policy of that sort is going to succeed. I ask the Government to lay down clearly what their policy is in this respect and to abide by it, without flinching, and, above all, if they can, to give to this House some information, or the prospects of some information, which will enable us to feel some confidence that the policy which is now being pursued is having some good results, and that there is really a prospect of good government being restored in a most unhappy island.

Mr. INSKIP: The House listened with admiration to the speech of the Noble Lord in this as it does in other Debates, but when he sits down I am almost as perplexed as to what policy he advocates as he is as to the policy which the Government advocates. He appears to be content with any policy so long as it is only composed of one element, and he tells the House that although it is not for him to state a policy yet the position of a Government which attempts concilliation on the one hand and coercion on the other is an impossible one. I am not at all sure that the Noble Lord is really justified in adopting that position. I cannot see why conciliation cannot proceed side by side with a proper firmness in a difficult situation. I cannot help feeling that the notion that the Noble Lord leaves is that the policy of the Government, with which he is in such acute disagreement, in attempting to give that which Ireland is groping for at the present time, is the wrong policy. We know that he differs from the Government in that policy, but that hardly justifies him in holding up the Government, I will not say to obliquy, but to criticism becauses side by side with the policy in which the Government believes and in which I hope a great many Members of this House believe, the Government is determined that there shall be a repression of outrage and that they will use every power at their command to ensure that. The Noble Lord selects a certain criterion in the condition of Ireland which I should
not have chosen as the most serious factor in the situation. He chooses to remark on the fact that in a great part of Ireland the King's Courts are deserted and Sinn Fein Courts are set up and apparently resorted to by the common folk. Perhaps that is a prejudice in favour of a crowded attendance in the King's Courts. Shin Fein may or may not have justice on their side, but they certainly have a human side, and I am not at all sure that it is not an attempt of Sinn Fein to impose upon the credulous Englishman and that there is no real seriousness in the Courts at all.
I read the other day an account of a judgment delivered, I think, by a Sinn Fein court in the County Clare, where the guilty parties were marooned on an island from which the police attempted to rescue them, and the police were promptly met with a fusillade of stones from the prisoners of the Sinn Fein court whom the police were attempting to rescue. That appears to me to suggest that both prisoners and court are combined in a conspiracy to laugh at the English nation and, possibly, also to amuse themselves with childish trivialities which need not disturb or even concern us. The outrages are the serious fact. No one recognises that more than those of us who support the Government in their policy of what I am not afraid to call conciliation in Ireland. What is the serious fact at the present time is that crime does not meet with a proper amount of condemnation in quarters where we should expect it to be condemned; and if there was the proper emphasis laid upon outrage, the hands of the Government would be strengthened in repressing it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who is not here to-night, used words which I cannot quote, but I am subject to the recollection of hon. Members in referring to them. He said that he could not and would not endorse the murder of innocent soldiers and policemen who were doing their duty, and we agree with him and hon. Members opposite agree, and yet we find that there are those opposite, as well as outside the House, who agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he deliberately asks the Government to refrain from the provocation, of which he holds them guilty, in sending ammunition to equip those who are going to put down those outrages. What is the use of condemning outrage
and pouring out your sympathy with the victims if you will not allow the Government to come to their defence in conveying the weapons which will prevent outrage?

Mr. A. DAVIES: (Clitheroe)
May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that there is no section of the Labour party that subscribes to the assassination of soldiers or policemen, and I do not believe that there is any percentage of Members of this party who associated themselves with the railwaymen in refraining from carrying munitions and troops?

Mr. INSKIP: I am sure that the House has heard with the greatest possible gladness the statement of the hon. Member from the benches opposite, which is of the greatest importance, that there is a genuine desire that the Government should be assisted in carrying out the only policy with which the country will be contented as long as outrages of this kind exist. If that is the spirit in which hon. Members opposite are prepared to co-operate with the Government, I hope it will be the beginning of a new chapter in this connection. This Debate will have been useful if only because we have had the advantage of a declaration of that sort, and I hope we may have a similar declaration from other hon. Members as showing that the whole Labour party is united in giving support to the policy which has been outlined. I think I may say that if hon. Members opposite are prepared to co-operate with the Government in that way, I hope the Government will be prepared to make use of the undoubted force it has in the best elements of the Labour party in effecting conciliation, possibly even with Sinn Fein itself. I think it was in the conference with the Prime Minister the other day that a representative of the Labour party from Cork offered to use the Labour party in Ireland as a bridge to bring the Government and Sinn Fein together, and, although I am a Unionist and have fought for the principles of Unionism and Conservatism, I am prepared at this hour to bargain, if hon. Members around me who know so much more about Ireland than I do will allow me to say so—I am prepared to enter into a conference having a conciliatory object, even with those from whom we all profoundly differ, as we do differ from
Sinn Fein. If there is one element in Ireland that has a steading influence and may profoundly affect the situation now, it is the influence of my hon. Friends around me. The hope of Ireland surely is the devotion of those who are her children. As long as that love and devotion exist I shall never despair of Ireland. I confess that I should be upheld with hope more strongly if I saw my hon. Friends, and indeed the Government, prepared to run greater risks in giving to Ireland that which the spirit of Ireland demands, rather than be content with a continuation of the present evils which we all deplore.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The note struck in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman has, at any rate, touched a note of sympathy in myself. I only wish that other Members had developed that theme. What we want to do in all parts of the House is to prevent bloodshed in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke for the Government told us—and I am sure we were grateful—that the pensions of policemen's widows were to be increased. That is not what we want in this House. What we want to do is to prevent the creation of widows by these outrages. The troubles in Londonderry do very seriously affect public opinion on this side of the Irish Sea. People are horrified at this open fighting in a city of a so-called civilised country. What we want to know is this: When the troops arrive in Londonderry are they going to disarm the population, and is it going to be done impartially? In the Irish newspapers to-day there are very circumstantial accounts to the effect that the Unionists are walking about with rifles and equipment, quite illegally. They have not been called out by the Deputy-Lieutenant, but have taken their rifles out of their hiding holes. I understand that the Sinn Feiners in Derry are using revolvers, but that the Unionists have rifles. It takes two parties to make a fight, and if there is to be disarmament it ought to be impartial.
A very significant incident happened about three weeks ago in that neighbourhood. The house of a prominent Unionist, Mr. Watson, of Beech Park, was raided—

Mr. MOLES: May I put you right—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I shall not give way; I have not stated my facts.

Mr. MOLES: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member will have ample time to reply. It was stated in the Press and has not been denied, and I asked a question about it, that two Sinn Feiners raided the house of Mr. Watson and seized 20 rifles. It was served up as another atrocity by Sinn Fein. If 20 rifles were seized, is Mr. Watson going to be prosecuted for possession of those arms—because if not what is the good of appealing to the better element in Ireland if the law is not applied impartially? If the Unionist element in the north are permitted to keep rifles and if no steps are taken to disarm them, can we wonder at the contempt in which the British Government is openly held in the south and west of Ireland? That is a point which should be made perfectly clear in this Debate, if there is time to do it. I cannot understand why the Minister for War cannot attend here when his soldiers are criticised.

Mr. STANTON: Our soldiers.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, British soldiers. They were criticised by the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Motion, and I think the Minister for War might have been here to state what is his point of view. The question in Ireland has now become a military problem. I am going to read a statement from the "Manchester Guardian" of to-day which that paper quotes from the "Freeman's Journal" and it is open to other hon. Members to deny it. There was a young man called Thomas Brett who was killed in consequence of a fight, probably in making a murderous attack on a police barracks. He was buried at Drombeg, near Thurles. Upwards of 3,000 volunteers assembled and the remains were carried to the cemetery. Hon. Members from Ireland will agree that up to the present these public funerals have been conducted with decorum and decency.

Mr. MOLES: No.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Even bigotry might admit that. Armed
bodies of soldiers, the statement says, held positions in the field surrounding the grave and platoons of military lay prone with rifles right across the passage along with the remains had to pass. This evoked intense resentment, but the clergy successfully calmed the people. I pass over a portion of it, and it continues that the crowd promptly stood up with their hands raised above their heads, and that they were searched and mourning badges torn off, and in many cases religious emblems also. Parties were also pulled out of motors and searched. Protests were made in this country when the wretched creature Toplis was borne to the grave in a tradesman's cart. I think we respect the dead, whoever they are. The statement goes on that on the way to the grave all the people had to undergo the order to search, and that even the officiating clergy and chief mourners were not exempted. The party then proceeded, the armed forces turning their guns towards the people who were kneeling and joining in the rosary, under cover of sentries.

Mr. PALMER: Has the hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to ascertain if these statements are true?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am putting the question now for the Government to answer. I feel as bitterly as any Member of this House that these things should go round the world as having been done by the British Army with its glorious record. I am as jealous of the honour of British soldiers as anyone in tins House, and it hurts me to have these things appearing in the Press. This is what the troops appear to be doing in Ireland instead of keeping order in London and Dublin. I suggest that the Minister of War, whom I am glad to see now in his place, ought to pay attention to this sort of thing and see that the troops are used impartially. If he would do that instead of writing provocative articles on the Irish people in the Press we might see some sort of order, and at any rate prevent these disgraceful episodes which bring the whole of the British Empire into contempt.

Mr. BILLING: A feeling of confusion overwhelms me after listening to the last four speeches. The hon. Member (Mr. Inskip), who preceded the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, did try to make the
matter a little clear and did express his desire to sacrifice any party feeling or prejudice on the altar of conciliation; but what were the other speeches from the Labour Benches but a pat on the back for Sinn Feiners without having the courage to come out and say that they were prepared to unite with them? Does the hon. Member think that by getting up and saying "while we do not approve of murder, we think there is no other way of bringing the Government to their senses" is likely to stop it? And when he says that he disapproves of every form of force, is he speaking for the Labour party? Is not direct action another form of force? It is only a question of degree. I was surprised when the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. A. Davies) rose from the Labour Benches during the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Inskip) and made what in my opinion was the only useful contribution to this Debate, including the Government's contribution. He said, speaking for the Labour party, that he was not prepared, and they were not prepared, to use the Trade Union organisation as a weapon to prevent the Government from enforcing by arms, if necessary, all law and order in Ireland. There were cheers all round the House, but there was not one response from the Labour Benches.

Dr. MURRAY: Yes, there was one here.

Mr. BILLING: I am glad that we had a contribution from another hon. Member.

Major BARNES: There was another from the back Bench.

Mr. BILLING: Then we have three Members. Is there any advance on three? There are 70 Labour Members in this House, or there should be when there is such an important Debate. My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil), whom not even the Lord President of the Council could on this occasion accuse of being a fanatic, said that he could not possibly see how conciliation could walk side by side with coercion. Surely that was the very thing which he himself advocated the other day when he said that the only means the League of Nations enforcing its power was to conciliate, and, if necessary, to use force. I do not hold any brief for the Government in this matter. They have not done either thing with a whole
heart, and the reason they have neither coerced nor conciliated with a whole heart is that they have a party behind them which is not whole-hearted on either point, and the result is that their attitude to all Ireland is essentially the attitude of a Coalition. You cannot coerce in chaos, and chaos exists in Ireland to-day, and every speech I have heard in this House has been coloured either by party prejudice or by a desire purely to criticise.
There is a general fear throughout Ireland, and it is understandable, but it is not forgivable. I think the Government would have been justified in publishing the names and addresses of every man on that tram referred to who refused to come forward, as better men than they have come forward to make a sacrifice, if they are desirous of seeing order restored. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull will use any stick with which to fight the Government. I have listened to him on more than one occasion in this House, and, if I may say so, he is not unique in occupying the time of this House. He is not the only Member who has seen fit to do so, and perhaps he has his own point of view. There was a time when I had my own point of view, and I missed as few occasions as he has missed to endeavour to press it on the House. But it is sometimes a mistake to use one's country's distress as a means to whack any Government, and I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull not to tilt at the Government when in the tilting he certainly encourages a further state of disorder. The only excuse for tilting at the Government to-day on the question of Sinn Fein is if any hon. Member is convinced in his mind that a Republic in Ireland, with an absolute severance of the Irish people, is absolutely essential to the solving of this question. If the hon. Member believes that, he is justified in tilting at the Government, but he is not justified in using Ireland as a weapon against the Government because he disagrees with them about Russia. That is what we have seen to-night. The Noble Lord disagrees with the Government about the League of Nations, so he hits them with Ireland. A Labour Member disagrees with the Government, probably, about 127½ per cent., and so he strikes at them with Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull dis-
agrees with them about Russia, and so he strikes at them with Ireland. That means the dismemberment of the Empire, the general confusion of all political life, the confusion of civil administration in Ireland, and every party hack in this House, and every man who presumes to call himself an independent critic, is using it as a weapon to strike at the Government. I will mention Derry with an expression of regret that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government should have introduced—it possibly is the redeeming feature of all Irish people—the sense of humour. There is nothing funny about the position of Ireland to-day. I do not think even a Sinn Fein Irishman would crack a joke about it to-day. They are utterly determined, if they can, by intimidation, by outrage, by every weapon that lies to their hand, to free Ireland from what they choose to call the British yoke. We are in the same position as before. Are we going to allow it to go on, or are we going to try to stop it? It will not be stopped by constantly waiting until we are struck and then looking for the person who struck us. There is a strong opinion in Ireland to-day in favour of what has been constitutional government. My heart would beat for the Irish people if they would come out to fight. If the Sinn Feiners would come out in a clean fight to fight us to an issue, I should have sympathy with them, but I have no sympathy for the man who stands behind a street corner and shoots a man behind his back. I can understand a man's political opinions being anything, I can understand an Irishman feeling that Ireland has been betrayed, by not one Government, but by several, a Conservative Government, and a Liberal Government, then a Coalition Government, and again the re-hash that we have in this country to-day. I can understand Ireland being bitter about it, but I cannot understand any true Irishman shooting a man behind his back—a bastard Irishman who has drifted into the nation, perhaps, but not a true-born Irishman. If this Government is going to exist we must stamp out foul play in Ireland.

Commander BELLAIRS: I want for a few moments to recall the House to the realities of this Debate. The gravamen of the charge against the Government is that they have not done all that is pos-
sible to support the forces of law and order in Ireland, and there has been no attempt on the part of any Member of the Government to get up and say why they do not enforce martial law in Ireland. I do not feel that all has been done to support the police and those who wish to see law and order maintained in Ireland until martial law is enforced there. It was defined by Sir Charles Napier when he said that,
the union of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one person is the essence of martial law.
The Government say that General Macready has complete powers; he has not complete powers so long as he is not able to enforce martial law in Ireland, and how can we expect civilian witnesses who live under a reign of terror to come forward and bear witness in regard to murders which they have seen unless they feel that they will be supported, as they would be supported were there martial law? The learned Attorney-General mentioned the case of the murder of a Magistrate, and said there were 26 witnesses of that murder in the tram, among whom were people employed in Government offices. Therefore, they are known to Members of the Government and to the Attorney-General, yet they do not come forward and bear witness. Can anyone in this House doubt for one moment that those people would be willing to bear witness, were there military tribunals established in the land? They would then feel that they had got the complete support of the Government. In regard to the soldier-cyclists who were trapped by about 100 Sinn Feiners playing a game on the road, if they had martial law there, groups of men would not be allowed to assemble. The fact of their assembling in a group would be tantamount to proof that they were enemies, that they were Sinn Feiners, and they would all be called upon to hold their hands up at once, and to be searched and to surrender, but under the present circumstances the soldiers do not know whether a group is friendly or hostile. If General Macready had complete powers, he would be able to specify by proclamation that any assembly of a group of more than 10 men would be regarded as enemies of the country, and would be liable to be fired at. In those circumstances, we cannot for one moment allow that the Government have done all that is possible to give
General Macready complete powers to establish law and order in Ireland.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn", put, and negatived.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Long.]

Earl WINTERTON: I do not propose to oppose this Motion, but I think we should have some indication as to what the future progress of the Committee stage of the Bill is likely to be. Considerable doubt exists in the minds of hon. Members, and even in the minds of those who represent Ulster itself, as to what are the intentions of the Government. The Committee upon the Home Rule Bill is not to sit again this week. We know already that the House is going to be asked to sit during the autumn, but we have practically come to no decision on the vital points of this measure, because after all the financial Clauses are the most important.

Mr. PALMER: Why did you waste time on the Adjournment?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member wastes more times than anyone else. I have wasted no time on the Adjournment. I am entitled on the Report stage to raise the question of the future of the Bill, and to ask whether it is intended to pass it through all its stages and into law before the end of the present session. I want to know whether it is going to be taken again next week. It is perfectly impossible if it is intended to really make this Bill what it claims to be, a measure "to provide for the better government of Ireland," to pass it in the sort of atmosphere in which we have been discussing it this afternoon. We have had no Cabinet Minister present, except the First Lord of the Admiralty—neither the Leader of the House nor the Prime Minister. If we look back to the history of successive Home Rule Bills and remember the way in which they were discussed in the old days, the way in which the leaders were present to put forward
the points of view of their respective sides, and when we see this Bill discussed, as it has been during the present Committee stage, one is amazed. We have the whole of the members of the Nationalist party absent, and those representing what are known as the free Liberals are for the greater part absent also.

Dr. MURRAY: No, no!

Earl WINTERTON: Well, I will give an example with the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) who, however we may differ from his views, is in a position of the greatest influence in this House. How many times have we had the advantage of his presence or of his words on this Bill? Once! In view of the state of Ireland and the situation generally and the kind of atmosphere that at present is in the House of Commons, is it not really a farce to try to pass this Bill through its different stages? I believe I am entitled to ask for an explanation from the Government? Do they really intend to get this Bill? Are we going to have the financial Clauses, and is it intended to put the Bill into operation in Ireland? There has never been a Bill which in its passage through Committee has had a worse Press than this Bill. It has no support whatever in the Press. No interest is taken in it. And this is in great contrast with the position in the old Home Rule days. When we consider the old Home Rule Bills and the discussions and the interest they attracted, one asks oneself whether this is a Committee of the House of Commons passing an important Bill or whether it is a debating society in some provincial town. No one who has been any length of time in this House, like my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), with whose views I so seldom find myself in agreement—

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord should address himself to the question of reporting progress.

Earl WINTERTON: That is exactly what I am to the best of my ability en-
deavouring to do. Anyone who has had the long experience of my right hon. Friend cannot, after the way in which this Bill has been discussed in Committee, and in view of the attitude that the Government has taken upon it, fail to be convinced that the Government has no intention of passing this Bill, or, if it be passed, of putting it into operation in Ireland. In view of what is taking place in Ireland to-day, and all the circumstances of the situation there, before we report Progress it is desirable that we should know from the Government what are their intentions. I am perfectly convinced of the truth of what I am saying. I am prepared to make a wager that neither this Bill in its present form, or anything like it, will ever pass the House of Commons, or will ever be passed into law.

Mr. PALMER: I have listened to a great many speeches in this House, but a more farcical one than that just delivered by the Noble Lord I have never heard. He has spent nearly every possible moment of the time left in demanding of the Government a long and eloquent reply to his speech. I noticed that this afternoon he was very active in standing up in favour of the Motion for Adjournment.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion to report Progress lapsed, without Question, put, and the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven of the Clock.